Skip to main content

Full text of "The history of the Romeward movement in the Church of England, 1833-1864"

See other formats



















Printed by BALLANTYNE, HANSON & Co. 
At the Ballantyne Press 

1 1 3 -1 8 

MAR 1 1 


MANY books have been written on the Oxford Move 
ment, but this is, so far as I am aware, the first 
attempt to write its History from the standpoint of 
an Evangelical Churchman. It will be admitted by 
all that there is room for a distinctly Protestant, just 
as much as for a Ritualistic or High Church, record 
of events which have transformed the outward appear 
ance of a considerable portion of the Church of 
England during the past sixty-seven years. I have 
not undertaken this task unasked, nor without a sense 
of the difficulty to deal with such an important subject 
in anything like an adequate manner. But I have 
honestly tried to do my best, and no man can do more 
than that. As to how far I have succeeded, or failed, 
others are better able to judge than I am. Although 
an Evangelical Churchman, I have certainly tried to 
deal with my theme in no narrow-minded manner. I 
claim to be as broad as the Church of England, nor 
would I banish from her ranks any of her loyal sons, 
though they may disagree with me on minor matters. 
I believe that I have written nothing but that which 
will meet with the approbation of old-fashioned High 
Churchmen and Broad Churchmen, as well as of those 


who glory in being termed Evangelical Churchmen. 
And certainly I have set down nothing in malice. I 
would not willingly misrepresent my opponents ; my 
desire is only to tell the truth about them. It is 
human to err, yet I have done my best to be accurate. 
Full references are given for every statement in this 
work, and nothing is brought forward without ample 
proof. I am not afraid to have my assertions tested 
by the original documents. I claim that not more 
than one alleged fact has been refuted in my last book, 
The Secret History of the Oxford Movement, though 
the Ritualists in every part of the British Empire 
have attacked it fiercely again and again during the 
past three years. Whether I shall be as fortunate 
this time remains to be seen. 

And I have tried to write in moderate language, 
even about very immoderate and highly censurable 
conduct. There is much recorded in the following 
pages which would justify stronger language than I 
have applied to it ; but I prefer that my readers shall 
judge the Romeward Movement in the Church of 
England by facts rather than by adjectives of abuse 
and insult. I cannot, of course, expect to please the 
Ritualists ; indeed, I think it possible that they will be 
even more angry with this book than with its prede 
cessor, for, in some respects, the facts here recorded 
are more damaging to their cause than those revealed 
in the Secret History. The exposures, herein con 
tained, of the conduct of not a few of the leaders of 


the Oxford Movement will be unpleasant reading for 
their followers, as well as for those loyal Churchmen 
who love honest, straightforward conduct, and hate all 
crooked ways and double-dealing. It is a sad, 
though true, story I have to relate. Yet these are 
days when the truth, however unpleasant, needs to 
be told without fear or favour, and in the plainest 

No candid person who reads this book can fail to 
see that the destination of the Oxford Movement from 
its very t birth .has been Rome. The evidence is too 
abundant and clear to leave room for doubt. For 
Corporate Reunion with Rome Newman (in his 
Anglican days), Froude, Keble, and, above all, Dr. 
Pusey, laboured and prayed. They did not wish to 
go to Rome as individuals. They wished to take the 
whole Church of England, with all her Cathedrals and 
Parish Churches, and her vast wealth, with them a 
present worthy of the Pope s acceptance, and on 
conditions easy for him to accept. Nothing less 
than this would satisfy them, and nothing less than 
this will satisfy the leaders of the Ritualists of 
the present day. But before they can succeed the 
Protestantism of the Church must be destroyed, and 
the work God did for us in the sixteenth century, 
through the Protestant Martyrs and Reformers, must 
be undone. How they hope to accomplish this, and 
the tactics necessary for such a cause, are revealed in 
these pages. It is an attack not merely on the 


Protestantism of the Church of England, but of the 
whole nation also, with which we have to deal. What 
affects the National Church must, indirectly at least, 
affect Free Churchmen also. They have cause to 
dread the Romeward Movement ; while the Church of 
Rome has cause to view it with unbounded joy. It 
is her work that the Ritualists are doing, and if it is 
allowed to go on unhindered we may expect ere long 
that the forces of Rome and of the Romanisers will 
join hands, with a view to destroying our National Pro 
testantism by political weapons. And, therefore, it 
is that I rejoice to see the formation of an orga 
nisation like the Imperial Protestant Federation, in 
which some twenty-seven organisations have united, 
on strictly Evangelical lines, to defend Reformation 
principles against the attacks of Romanists and 
Romanisers, quite apart from ordinary views of 
Church polity and party politics. I believe that, with 
God s blessing, this Federation has a great future 
before it, in the Colonies as well as in the mother 
country. While Ritualists are looking to the Church 
of Rome for unity, let true Protestants seek unity 
with their brethren who hold the Evangelical faith. 
It was so at the time of the Reformation. Cranmer, 
Ridley, Latimer, Jewel, and all the learned English 
Reformers sought brotherly sympathy and help from 
their Protestant brethren on the Continent, even 
though they did not accept an Episcopal form of 
Church government. Their brotherly letters one to 


another may be read in the publications of the Parker 
Society, and in the historical works of Burnet and 

I have only been able to bring this History down 
to the year 1864. If God shall spare my life I may 
complete it at a future date. It is not a repetition 
of my Secret History, but an entirely distinct work, 
covering different ground, though here and there I 
have been compelled, in a few instances only, to touch 
upon subjects already referred to. The book is issued 
with thankfulness to God for the wide circulation 
throughout the British Empire of my former work, 
and with an earnest prayer that He may graciously 
use this volume to open still more widely the eyes of 
the British nation to the many dangers which sur 
round it from the labours of a gigantic army within 
the gates, whose dearest ambition it is to bring us 
back to the spiritual darkness of the Dark Ages, to 
the rule of priestcraft, and to the intolerable bondage 
of the Papacy. But, " We are not of the night, nor 
of the darkness. Therefore let us not sleep, as do 
others; but let us watch and be sober" (i Thess. 

v. 5, 6). 

W. W. 

LONDON, October 30, 1900. 



The Reformation and Justification by Faith The Evangelical Party 
represents the Reformers Evangelicals and Puritans The 
Evangelical Revival What It did for the Church and Nation 
Testimony of Canon Liddon, Mr. Gladstone, Dean Church, 
Lord Selborne, and Mr. Lecky The Oxford Movement not a 
supplement to the Evangelical Revival The two Movements 
were antagonistic The Rule of Faith The Founder of the 
Oxford Movement Its real object Was Newman ever an 
Evangelical? Newman s early life Blanco White s warning 
What Newman thought of the Reformation in 1833 . 


The Birth of the Oxford Movement Newman and Froude s Inter 
view with Wiseman at Rome Its deep impression on Wise 
man s mind His bright expectations from it Was the 
Tractarian Movement born in Oxford or Rome ? Keble s ser 
mon on National Apostasy He denounces the State and exalts 
the Church Archbishop Sumner on Foreign Protestant Non- 
Episcopal Pastors The Tractarians on Church and State 
Generally favourable to entire separation Dr. Arnold s Prin 
ciples of Church Reform Its good and objectionable features 
Newman wants to " make a row in the world " The Conference 
at Hadleigh The Association of Friends of the Church Its 
plans of work Efforts to win Evangelical Churchmen " The 
seeds of revolution planted " They wished to bring back the 
principles of Laud Clerical and Lay addresses to the Arch 
bishop of Canterbury The Tracts for the Times Their Rome- 
ward tendency Newman called a "Papist" Names of the 
writers of the Tracts for the Times Dr. Pusey joins the 
Movement Fasting Roman Catholic opinion of the Tracts 
Exalting the priesthood Dr. Arnold s faithful warning . .18 


The first " outbreak of Tractism " Dr. Hampden s case Newman 
on Subscription to the Articles He was " not a great friend to 
them" Hampden appointed Regius Professor of Divinity 



Agitation against his appointment Lord Melbourne s letter to 
Pusey Newman s Elucidations Stanley s opinion of them 
Dr. Wilberforce and Hampden Lord Selborne and Dean 
Church s testimony as to Hampden s views The real cause of 
opposition was Hampden s Protestantism Proof of his Pro 
testantism Extracts from his writings Vote of want of con 
fidence by Convocation Hampden s Letter to the Archbishop 
of Canterbury Mr. Macmullen s case Hampden appointed 
Bishop of Hereford Protest of thirteen Bishops Lord John 
Russell s reply Archdeacon Hare defends Hampden A Pro 
secution commenced Organised by Pusey, Keble, Marriott, 
and Mozley Wilberforce s eleven questions for Hampden 
His answer The Bishop withdraws his Letters of Request 
Pusey s bitter disappointment Tractarian anxiety to prosecute 
their opponents Bishop Phillpotts denounces the Episcopal 
Veto Protests by the Dean of Hereford Hampden elected 
Bishop by the Chapter of Hereford Protest in Bow Church 
An exciting scene Consecration of Dr. Hampden The new 
Bishop s sympathisers Addresses of confidence . . .46 


Dr. Pusey s early Protestantism Extracts from his Historical En 
quiryHis Theological Society "The young Monks" The 
Library of the fathers Mr. Bickersteth approves of the Library 
Lord Selborne on the Fathers Richard Hurrell Froude 
His influence on Newman His admiration of Rome, and 
dislike of the Reformation Newman s early love of Rome 
His mind "essentially Jesuitical" Froude s Remains Extracts 
from the Remains, showing his Romanising principles Pro 
fessor Faussett s University sermon against the Tractarians 
The Rev. Peter Maurice s Popery in Oxford Dr. Pusey insults 
Mr. Maurice Newman s reply to Faussett Dr. Hook s Call 
to Union Bishop of Oxford s Visitation Charge The Oxford 
Martyrs Memorial Pusey thinks it " unkind to the Church of 
Rome " Keble thinks Cranmer a Heretic " Cranmer burnt 
well " Tractarian opposition to the Memorial The inscription 
on the Oxford Martyrs Memorial 86 


Newman in 1839 Influenced by an article in the Dublin Review 
Remarkable acknowledgments Corporate Reunion with Rome 
Preparing the way for Rome The Pastor of Antwerp 
Breakfasts with Newman and his friends Startling and trea 
sonable advice given him Pusey writes on Tendencies to 
Romanism He pleads for peace in the Church Dr. M Crie 



on the cry for peace Prayers for the Dead Breeks v, Wool- 
frey West v. Shuttleworth Egerton v. All of Rode Moresby 
Faculty Case Dr. Pusey begins to hear Confessions in 1838 
In 1846 he goes to Confession for the first time His Protestant 
notes in the Works of Tertullian Wiseman hopes the Trac- 
tarians will "succeed in their work" He realises the Roman 
tendency of their teaching Extracts from the Tracts for the 
Times Margaret Chapel as a centre of Tractarianism Mr. 
Serjeant Bellasis Oakeley claims the right to "hold all 
Roman doctrine" He is prosecuted by the Bishop of London 
His licence revoked Pusey defends Oakeley Says the judg 
ment against him has no moral force Pusey says he believes 
in Purgatory and Invocation of Saints Thinks England and 
Rome "not irreconcilably at variance" Oakeley secedes to 
Rome 114 


Tract XC.L\st of Pamphlets on Tract XC. Newman s object in 
writing the Tract Extracts from it Rejoicings at Oscott 
The letter of the Four Tutors Dr. Arnold s opinion of the 
Tract Declaration by the Heads of Houses Interesting letter 
from one of the Four Tutors Newman s Letter to Dr. Jelf 
Wiseman s attitude towards the advanced Tractarians Ward s 
traitorous letter to the Univers An English Catholic s letter 
to Newman Wiseman s reply to Newman Mr. Ambrose Lisle 
Phillipps letter The Bishop of Oxford s difficulties His cor 
respondence with Pusey and Newman The Tracts for the 
Times discontinued Newman s Letter to the Bishop of Oxford 
Newman withdraws his "dirty words" against Rome His 
reasons for doing so The Rev. William George Ward Thinks 
the Reformers guilty of rebellion and perjury Mr. Percival s 
defence of the Tracts for the Times Keble s defence of Tract 
XC. His opinion -on Canonical Obedience to the Bishops 
Pusey s defence of Tract XC. Manning s dislike for Tract XC. 
Jfa&osffis Judgment of the Bishops upon Tractarian Theology 
What the Bishops said against Tract XC. .... 147 


Mr. Golightly s letters to the Standard His serious charges against 
Ward and Bloxam Palmer of Magdalen anathematises Pro 
testantism Startling revelations Mr. Ambrose Phillipps de 
Lisle A secret Papal emissary to the Oxford Romanisers De 
Lisle intimate with and trusted by the Oxford leaders New 
man s Correspondence with De Lisle De Lisle hopes to intro 
duce some foreign Theologians to his Oxford friends He 



promises to be " prudent and reserved " Bloxam s fear of 
publicity De Lisle s extraordinary letter to his wife The 
Oxford men wish " to come to an understanding with the Pope 
at once " Their proposals to be sent to the Pope The Fathers 
of Charity A startling suggestion Cordial meetings at Oxford 
between the Tractarians and Romanists Negotiations with 
Wiseman and Rome Wiseman visits Oxford Has an inter 
view with Newman Wiseman writes to Rome for secret 
instruction and guidance He desires to become "the organ 
of intercourse" between Rome and Oxford A secret con 
spiracy De Lisle s letter to Lord Shrewsbury It is necessary 
"to blind" the Low Church party "Throwing dust in the 
eyes of Low Churchmen " " Unpleasant disclosures " in the 
papers " A holy reserve " Ward s double-dealing Remains 
in the Church of England " to bring many towards Rome "- 
The ultimate aim "submission to Rome" . .180 


The Jerusalem Bishopric Chevalier Bunsen s mission to England 
Puseyite opposition Hope - Scott s objections Dr. Hook 
supports the Bishopric His description of the Romanisers 
Pusey s Letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Ashley s 
letter to Pusey Mr. Gladstone supports the Bishopric New 
man and the Jerusalem Bishopric He thinks it "atrocious" 
and " hideous " His Protest Contest for Professorship of 
Poetry Isaac Williams and Reserve in Communicating Reli 
gious Knowledge Extracts from his writings Mr. Garbett, 
the Protestant candidate Samuel Wilberforce on the contest 
He denounces the Romanisers Success of the Protestant 
candidate Secessions to Rome The Rev. F. W. Faber His 
visit to the Continent His Sights and Thoughts in Foreign 
Churches How he deceived the public The Rev. William 
Goode His Protestant works His Case as It Is His Divine 
Rule of Faith and Practice Bishop Bagot s Visitation Charge 
Mr. Goode answers it The Parker Society .... 201 


Dr. Pusey s sermon on The Holy Eucharist Denounced to the 
Vice - Chancellor The Six Doctors Their opinion of the 
sermon Private negotiations with Pusey Pusey suspended 
for two years His protest Dr. Hawkins explanatory letter 
Proposed friendly prosecution Lord Camoys on Pusey s 
sermon Curious Clerical Libel Case An extraordinary Cleri 
cal Brawling Case Protests against Puseyism The English 
Churchman started by the Puseyites Newman s progress 



Romeward He resigns St. Mary s and retires to Littlemore 
Archdeacon Wilberforce on " the insane love for Rome " 
Palmer s Narrative of Events Pusey issues " adapted " Roman 
Catholic books of devotion Newman tells him they will " pro 
mote the cause of the Church of Rome" Hook thinks "they 
will make men Infidels" Extracts from these books What 
Pius IX. said about Dr. Pusey Bishop Blomfield on the effect 
of adapted Roman books Puseyites advocate Ecclesiastical 
Prosecutions of Protestant clergy The Bishop of Exeter and 
the Surplice in the Pulpit Legality of the Black Gown in the 
Pulpit Ward s Ideal of a Christian Church Puseyite attack on 
Dr. Symons Defeated Attempt to prosecute the Rev. James 
Garbett Failure Stone Altars and Credence Tables Faul- 
kener v. Litchfield Judgment of the Court of Arches The 
Cambridge Camden Society Denounced by the Rev. F. Close . 226 


Pusey thinks that God is "drawing" Newman to Rome Pusey 
refuses to write against the Church of Rome Newman secedes 
to Rome Father Dominic s narrative of Newman s reception 
Pusey on the secession Newman goes to see the Pope When 
and where was Newman ordained a Roman Catholic ? Some 
noteworthy circumstances St. Saviour s, Leeds Founded by 
Dr. Pusey He insists on an Altar The distinction between an 
Altar and a Table Dr. Hook s anxiety Dr. Wilberforce ap 
pointed Bishop of Oxford Pusey tries to secure his goodwill 
for Puseyism He fails Pusey s desire for Union with Rome 
His subtle tactics with his penitents Hook believes Pusey is 
under the influence of the Jesuits The Exeter Surplice Riots 
Debate in the House of Lords More Puseyite exhortations to 
prosecute Evangelical clergy An extraordinary case in Salis 
bury Diocese Extempore prayers in a Schoolroom "a gross 
scandal " The case of the Rev. James Shore Pusey s Sermon 
on The Entire Absolutio?i of the Pe?iitent Extracts from the 
Sermon Pusey goes to Confession for the first time The 
effect of Pusey s Confessional work on his penitents Testi 
mony of Dean Boyle Clerical Retreats 256 


Trouble at St. Saviour s, Leeds Secessions to Rome Hook s 
vigorous attack on Pusey " It is mere Jesuitism " " A semi- 
Papal colony" Hook hopes all the Romanisers will go to Rome 
Bishop Phillpotts prosecutes a Puseyite clergyman The 
Cross on a Communion Table The present state of the law on 




this point Reducing the distance to Rome Sackville College, 
East Grinstead The Rev. J. M. Neale inhibited Freeland v. 
Neale The Gorham Case Judgment of the Court of Arches 
Judgment of the Judicial Committee of Privy Council Puseyite 
Protest against the judgment Dr. Pusey and Keble wish to 
prosecute Gorham for heresy Bishop Phillpotts threatens to 
excommunicate the Archbishop of Canterbury The Exeter 
Synod The case of the Rev. T. W. Allies His extraordinary 
and disloyal conduct His visit to Rome The Pope tells him 
that Pusey has "prepared the way for Catholicism" What Mr. 
Allies told the Pope Allies secedes to Rome Correspondence 
with Pusey on Auricular Confession Startling charges against 
Pusey " In fear and trembling on their knees before you" 
"The rules of the Church of Rome are your rules" How the 
Oxford Movement helped Rome Wilberforce calls Pusey "a 
decoy bird" for the Papal net He says that he is "doing the 
work of a Roman Confessor" The Papal Aggression Lord 
John Russell s Durham Letter Bishop Blomfield on the Rome- 
ward Movement St. Paul s, Knightsbridge St. Barnabas , Pim- 
lico Riots in St. Barnabas Church Resignation of the Rev. 
W. J. E. Bennett St. Saviour s, Leeds Traitorous resolutions 
of twelve clergymen A Confessional inquiry by the Bishop 
The Clergy defend questioning women on the Seventh Com 
mandment 284 


The Bristol Church Union Pusey objects to a protest against 
Rome Archbishop Tait on the Church Discipline Act The 
Judicial Committee of Privy Council Lay Address to the Queen 
Her Majesty s action in response Lay Address to the Arch 
bishop of Canterbury The appeal to the Bishops An Epis 
copal Manifesto A Clerical and Lay Declaration in support 
of the Gorham judgment The Confessional at Plymouth 
Revival and reform of Convocation Prosecution of Archdeacon 
Denison The power and privileges of examining chaplains 
The Archbishop s Commission of Inquiry The Archbishop s 
judgment at Bath How the Archdeacon evaded punishment 
Pusey hoists the flag of rebellion The protest against the Bath 
judgment The Society of the Holy Cross The Association for 
the Promotion of the Unity of Christendom Startling revela 
tions as to its early history Secret negotiations with Rome De 
Lisle s secret letter to Cardinal Barnabo The Cardinal s 
answer Newman consulted by De Lisle The conspirators 
meet in London Their secret, traitorous, and treacherous mes 
sage to the Pope The case of Westerton v. Liddell Judgment 
-A Ritualistic rebel 326 




The Convent Case at Lewes Charges against the Rev. J. M. Neale 
Riot at Lewes at the burial of a Sister of Mercy Bishop of 
Chichester s letters to Mr. Scobell and the Mother Superior 
The Bishop withdraws his patronage from St. Margaret s, East 
Grinstead Threatening the Bishop Mr. Neale s pamphlet 
His underhand conduct Confession on the sly The Case of 
the Rev. Alfred Poole His licence withdrawn His admissions 
Remarkable assertions at a Communicants Meeting Mr. 
Poole appeals to the Archbishop of Canterbury His judgment 
The Lavington Case Romanising books Theological Colleges 
Attack upon Cuddesdon College Mr. Golightly s Facts and 
Documents Showing the Alarming State of the Diocese of Oxford 
An exciting controversy 3^3 


The St. George s in the East Riots The Rev. Bryan King The 
Rev. Hugh Allen The attitude of the Bishop of London The 
Rector resigns Church of England Protection Society For 
mation of the English Church Union Its early delight in 
Ecclesiastical Prosecutions Opposes Prayer Book Revision 
"at present" Dr. Littledale advocates "Catholic Revision" 
He is "bowed down" with grief, shame, and indignation 
Expulsion of Protestant clergymen aimed at Preaching in 
Theatres "a profane and degrading practice" The Union 
attempts to prosecute Evangelical clergymen The Union 
praises the Bishop of Salisbury for prosecuting Dr. Williams 
The Union demands the prosecution and deprivation of the 
Evangelical Bishop Waldegrave The E.C.U. demands a cheap 
and easy way to prosecute Archbishops, Bishops, and clergy 
Tries to prosecute foreign Protestant Pastors The Church 
Review says the Union was established to "enforce the law"- 
It declares that "to silence the teaching of heresy is the plain 
duty of the Church s Governors" Dr. Pusey prosecutes Pro 
fessor Jowett Pusey says that "prosecution is not persecu 
tion" The Church Review praises prosecutors as men of 
"moral courage" The President of the E.C.U. promises 
obedience to the Courts of Judicature 405 

INDEX 421 





The Reformation and Justification by Faith The Evangelical Party 
represents the Reformers Evangelicals and Puritans The Evan 
gelical Revival What It did for the Church and Nation Testi 
mony of Canon Liddon, Mr. Gladstone, Dean Church, Lord 
Selborne, and Mr. Lecky The Oxford Movement not a supplement 
to the Evangelical Revival The two Movements were antagon 
istic The Rule of Faith The Founder of the Oxford Movement- 
Its real object Was Newman ever an Evangelical? Newman s 
early life Blanco White s warning What Newman thought of the 
Reformation in 1833. 

AT the Protestant Reformation there was one truth which, 
perhaps, more than any other, came before the world with 
all the freshness and power of a new revelation from God. 
It had been revealed to man fifteen hundred years before 
in the New Testament, but there it had remained buried 
during the Dark Ages, unheard of and unknown to those 
to whom the Bible was a closed book. Men learnt, in 
the sixteenth century, with joyful surprise, that it was pos 
sible to obtain absolution of their sins, and an entrance to 
Heaven, without the assistance of any Sacrificing Priest, 
and without the aid of a Father Confessor. They learnt 
that it was the blessed privilege of even the vilest and 
most sinful to go for pardon direct to the Saviour of 
mankind, to approach direct to the Mercy Seat, without 
money and without price, and without any priestly 
intervention or aid. " At the very root of the Reforma- 


tion changes," said the Bishop of Winchester, in his Visi 
tation Charge, in 1899, " lay the principle of the direct 
access of the individual soul to God, without human inter 
vention of any kind, a principle which destroys the whole 
theory upon which the Roman Confessional had built its 
power." l This doctrine was embodied by our Reformers 
in the Book of Homilies, in which we are taught, as to the 
application of the merits of Christ to our souls : " Herein 
thou needest no other man s help, no other sacrifice or 
Oblation, no Sacrificing Priest, no Mass, no means estab 
lished by man s invention." 2 

The acceptance of this grand and glorious truth made 
our Reformers free men. It was the death-knell of priest 
craft, and the grave of Sacerdotalism. The cry of " No 
priest between the sinner and his Saviour," soon led to 
the further cry of " No Pope between the Englishman 
and his Sovereign." The rule of the priest was intoler 
able for men who were no longer spiritual slaves, and 
submission to Papal Supremacy became an impossibility 
for free-born Englishmen. Round this great truth, this 
doctrine of Justification by Faith only, centred the whole 
battle of the Reformation. Everything else, however im 
portant in itself, was of comparatively little moment. 
Here we have the real heart and soul of the Reformation 
Movement ; this is the centre from which its pulsations 
vibrate, and from which its life-blood flows. Those who 
preach it are alone the true descendants of those to whom, 
under God, we owe the English Reformation of the six 
teenth century. It is quite a mistake to suppose that the 
Evangelical party is new in the Reformed Church of 
England. The Reformers, with scarcely a solitary ex 
ception, held Evangelical doctrines, while their Protes 
tantism was far more extreme than anything heard from 
Protestant platforms in the present day. A study of their 
writings, as reprinted by the Parker Society nearly sixty 
years since, affords ample evidence of their hatred of 
Sacerdotalism. Evangelical Churchmen do not represent 

1 The Times ; October 2, 1899. 

2 Homily Concerning the Sacrament, Part I. 


now the Puritan party of the reign of Elizabeth, who 
were bitterly opposed to the Episcopal form of Church 
government, while Evangelical Churchmen were its warm 
friends. The Churchmen who fought against the Eliza 
bethan Puritans held Evangelical views. All other parties 
within the Church date their birth from long after the 

Canon Overton, a member of the English Church 
Union, proves conclusively how great was the difference 
between Evangelical Churchmen and Puritans. 

"The typical Puritan," he says, "was gloomy and austere; the 
typical Evangelical was bright and genial. The Puritan would not 
be kept within the pale of the National Church ; the Evangelical 
would not be kept out of it. The Puritan was dissatisfied with our 
Liturgy, our ceremonies, our vestments, and our hierarchy; the 
Evangelical was perfectly contented with them. If Puritanism was 
the more fruitful in theological literature, Evangelicalism was infin 
itely more fruitful in works of piety and benevolence ; there was 
hardly a single missionary or philanthropic scheme of the day which 
was not either originated or warmly taken up by the Evangelical 
party. The Puritans were frequently in antagonism with * the powers 
that be, the Evangelicals never ; no amount of ill-treatment could 
put them out of love with our constitution in both Church and 
State." J 

The Evangelical Movement of the latter half of the 
eighteenth and the early part of the nineteenth centuries 
was a Revival and not a Birth. It did great things for 
England and England s Church, as even those who have 
been its keenest critics have admitted. The testimony of 
Canon Liddon, the intimate friend and biographer of Dr. 
Pusey is, on this subject, important. He writes : 

" In its earlier days the Evangelical Movement was mainly if not 
exclusively interested in maintaining a certain body of positive truth. 
The great doctrines which alone make repentance towards God 
and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ seriously possible were its 
constant theme. The world to come, with its boundless issues of 
life and death, the infinite value of the one Atonement, the regene 
rating, purifying, guiding action of God the Holy Spirit in respect of 

1 Overton s English Church in the Eighteenth Century, chap. iii. 


the Christian soul, were preached to our grandfathers with a force 
and earnestness which are beyond controversy. The deepest and 
most fervid religion in England during the first three decades of 
this century was that of the Evangelicals ; and, to the last day of his 
life, Pusey retained that love of the Evangelicals to which he 
often adverted, and which was roused by their efforts to make 
religion a living power in a cold and gloomy age." 1 

We thus learn that the Evangelicals were chiefly engaged 
on the most important subjects affecting the glory of God 
and the salvation of human souls, and that, under God, 
to them it is mainly due that true religion was revived 
as " a living power in a cold and gloomy age." What 
higher praise could be offered to any Church party than 
this, which comes from one of the warmest friends of the 
Oxford Movement ? I may now be permitted to cite the 
opinion of Mr. Gladstone, who, in his essay on " The 
Evangelical Movement," which first appeared in the British 
Quarterly Review for July 1879, pointed out what he con 
ceived to be many serious defects in its system. Yet even 
he was constrained to admit that, " though Evangeli 
calism as a system may have been eminently narrow and 
inconsequent, it was born to do a noble work, and that 
the men to whom the work was committed, were men 
worthy of this high election." Mr. H. O. Wakeman, an 
active supporter of the Ritualists, admits that, " During 
the latter part of the eighteenth century the Evangelical 
party were the salt of the Church of England." 3 

Two more High Churchmen I will quote before I pass 
on. The testimony of the first of these proves that the 
Evangelical Revival was powerful in the interests of 
philanthropy, and did not forget the interests of the 
body while engaged chiefly in looking after the eternal 
welfare of immortal souls. The late Dean Church had 
many supposed faults to point out in the Evangelical 
Movement when he wrote his historical sketch of The 
Oxford Movement; but he acknowledged that 

" Evangelical religion had not been unfruitful, especially in 

1 Liddon s Life of Dr. Pusey > vol. i. p. 255. 

2 Gladstone s Gleanings of Past Years, vol. vii. p. 236. 

3 Wakeman s History of the Church of England, p. 452, 6th edition. 


public results. It had led Howard and Elizabeth Fry to assail the 
brutalities of the prisons. It led Clarkson and Wilberforce to over 
throw the slave trade, and ultimately slavery itself. It had created 
great Missionary Societies. It had given motive and impetus to 
countless philanthropic schemes." 1 

In this Dean Church was of one mind with the 
Evangelical Lord Shaftesbury, who with truth declared : 
" I am satisfied that most of the great philanthropic 
movements of the century have sprung from " the Evan 
gelicals. 2 

The testimony of the late Earl of Selborne, at one 
time Lord Chancellor of England, a decided High 
Churchman, though not a Ritualist, is important. He 
says : 

" Next to the home influence which surrounded me, none con 
tributed more to preserve the balance of my mind than that of the 
excellent representatives of Evangelical opinion, with whom I had 
been brought into contact. There were many things in that system, 
particularly the Calvinistic tenets held by the most powerful of its 
teachers, with which I never agreed ; and it always seemed to me 
defective, as leaving too much out of sight the organic side of 
Christianity. But in its spirituality, in its constant presentation of 
Christ and His work as the foundation of faith and practice, and in 
its reverence for the Scriptures, I thought it set an example which 
all might have done well to follow." 8 

One of the most bitter writers against the Evan 
gelical party whom I have ever met with is the Rev. 
W. H. B. Proby, an enthusiastic supporter of the Ritual 
istic party. Yet even he, writing in 1888, was compelled 
to acknowledge its services both to the Church of 
England and to the cause of practical godliness. 

"And what, with all this dignity and influence," he asks, "had 
the Low Church party effected ? They had effected a true conver 
sion to God in Christ in the cases of numberless individuals, and 
they had effected certain reforms and improvements in the English 
Church at large, tending to the edification of individuals. Then 

1 The Oxford Movement. By Dean Church, p. 13, ist edition. 

2 Life and Work of ihe Seventh Earl of Shaftesbury, popular edition, p. 519. 

3 Memorials Family and Personal, 1766-1865. By the Earl of Selborne, vol. i. 
p. 211. 


they had been the means of improving the psalmody, by the singing 
of hymns, the psalmody having previously been confined almost 
entirely to the performance of metrical versions of Psalms. They 
had caused the public service of the Church to be gone through 
generally in a more becoming manner than had too often been 
customary ; doubtless through practising the same rule which in 
later times was formulated by Charles Simeon, of Cambridge, Do 
not read the prayers, but pray them. . . . There was, besides, an 
improvement of the outward face of society at large. There was 
less drunkenness in the upper classes, less indecent language, and 
less profane swearing. Shops were not so frequently opened on 
Good Friday. And of course there was an improvement in the 
general efficiency of the clergy; that is to say, owing to the Low 
Church movement there were more religious clergymen than there 
had ever been before. There was an increased care about Divine 
Service : the Prayer Book (so far, that is, as Low Churchmen chose, 
or had learnt to use it) was used more devoutly ; several parts of the 
system of religion inculcated by the Church of England began to be 
made of more account than they had been ; people learned to come 
to church in time for the commencement of the prayers ; people 
were induced to join in the Amens and responses aloud." 1 

Many of my readers will, I doubt not, be influenced 
on this subject by the opinion of an historian, who would 
pay but little attention to the opinion of divines. I may 
therefore appeal to the testimony of Mr. Lecky, who also 
criticises the Evangelical party, but is constrained to ac 
knowledge their valuable services to the country. 

"Great, however," he remarks, "as was the importance of the 
Evangelical Revival in stimulating these [philanthropic] efforts, it had 
other consequences of perhaps a wider and more enduring influence. 
Before the close of the century in which it appeared, a spirit had begun 
to circulate in Europe threatening the very foundations of society and 
belief. The revolt against the supernatural theory of Christianity 
which had been conducted by Voltaire and the Encyclopaedists . . . 
had produced in France a revolutionary spirit, which in its intensity 
and its proselytising fervour was unequalled since the days of the 
Reformation. . . . Religion, property, civil authority, and domestic 
life were all assailed, and doctrines incompatible with the very 
existence of government were embraced by multitudes with the 

1 Annals of the Low Church Party. By the Rev. W. H. B. Proby, vol. i. 
PP- 350-352. 


fervour of a religion. England, on the whole, escaped the contagion. 
Many causes conspired to save her, but among them a prominent 
place must, I believe, be given to the new and vehement religious 
enthusiasm which was at that very time passing through the middle 
and lower classes of the people, which had enlisted in its service 
a large proportion of the wilder and more impetous reformers, and 
which recoiled with horror from the anti-Christian tenets that were 
associated with the Revolution in France." l 

To have contributed thus powerfully towards preserv 
ing England from Atheism and the horrors of the French 
Revolution constitutes, I venture to suggest, a strong 
claim on the gratitude of all patriots to the Evangelical 
party. Referring to the Evangelical leaders of the latter 
part of the eighteenth and the commencement of the nine 
teenth centuries, Mr. Lecky affirms that : 

"All these possessed, in an eminent degree, the qualities of 
heart and mind that influence great masses of men; and they 
and their colleagues gradually changed the whole spirit of the 
English Church. They infused into it a new fire and passion of 
devotion, kindled a spirit of fervent philanthropy, raised the 
standard of clerical duty, and completely altered the whole tone 
and tendency of the preaching of its ministers. Before the close of 
the [eighteenth] century the Evangelical Movement had become the 
almost undisputed centre of religious activity in England, and it 
continued to be so till the rise of the Tractarian Movement of 1833." 2 

The Tractarian Movement has been to the Evangelical 
Movement what the Jesuit Order was to the Reformation. 
It has paralysed the energies of every Evangelical who has 
yielded to its influence. It has been frequently asserted 
that the new Sacerdotal Revival in the Church of Eng 
land is only supplementary to the Evangelical Movement 
and is not opposed to it. "The High Church Revival," 
writes Canon Overton, " was not the antagonist but the 
supplement of the Evangelical Revival which preceded 
it." J And Canon Liddon asserts that "the Oxford Move 
ment was a completion of the earlier Revival of religion 

1 Lecky s History of England, vol. iii. pp. 145, 146, edition 1892. 

2 Ibid. p. 134. 

8 The Anglican Revival. By J. H. Overton, D.D., p. 15. 


known as Evangelical." 1 Mr. H. O. Wakeman asserts 
that the Oxford Movement " did not so much supersede 
the Caroline, Latitudinarian, and Evangelical Movements 
as supplement them." 2 To all this, so far at least as it 
applies to the Evangelicals, I reply by denying that the 
Oxford Movement was either the " supplement " to or 
the " completion " of the Evangelical Revival ; and by 
asserting most emphatically that its attitude was distinctly 
antagonistic. If in any sense it was a " supplement " it 
was in the sense that poison is a supplement to whole 
some food. The chief characteristics of Evangelical 
religion can never be reconciled with the Sacerdotal 
system. The Evangelical theory that Divine grace with 
pardon of sins is conveyed directly to each individual soul 
by God Himself, through Jesus Christ, our only Mediator, 
and not by Sacramental elements or priestly absolution, 
can never be reconciled with the general teaching of the 
early Tractarians and their successors of the present day. 
That well-known champion of Ritualism, the late Rev. 
Dr. Littledale, perceived and acknowledged this thirty 
years since. He said: "And first, it ought to be said 
that they [the Catholic and Protestant ] are logically two 
distinct religions, and not merely differing aspects of the 
same religion. They are quite as diverse from each other 
as Judaism is from Islam ; though like these two creeds, 
they have a common stock of books, sacred names, and 
ideas." And, again : " But the real fact, that these two 
systems are rival religions, can easily be discovered by 
considering what we mean by Religion." 3 Another char 
acteristic of Evangelical teaching is the doctrine that the 
Bible is the sole and only Rule of Faith, and a claim to 
the right of Private Judgment ; while that of the Trac 
tarians and Ritualists is that Tradition also forms a part 
of the Christian s Rule of Faith, and that Private Judgment 
is a thing to be condemned. The ingenuity of man can 
never reconcile these opposing theories together, or prove 

1 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. i. p. 254. 

2 Wakeman s History of the Church of England, p. 491. 

3 The Two Religions. By Richard F. Littledale, LL.D., pp. 2, 3. London : 
G. J. Palmer. 1870. 


that the one is but the supplement to the other. In this 
connection it is worthy of note that one of the first blows 
struck by the leaders of the Oxford Movement was aimed 
against direct access to God for pardon of sins, and with 
the object of riveting once more on English Churchmen 
the intolerable chains of priestcraft. Writing to the Hon. 
and Rev. A. P. Percival, on August 14, 1833, the Rev. 
Richard Hurrell Froude announced : 

" Since I have been back to Oxford, Keble has been here, and 
he, and Palmer, and Newman, have come to an agreement, that 
the points which ought to be put forward by us are the following : 

" (i) The doctrine of Apostolic Succession as a rule of practice, 
i.e. that the participation of the body and blood of Christ is essential 
to the maintenance of Christian life and hope in each individual. 

" (2) That it is conveyed to individual Christians only by the hands 
of the successors of the Apostles, and their delegates. " x 

Here it is implied that something which " is essential 
to the maintenance of Christian life," can " only" be " con 
veyed to individual Christians," not direct by the Saviour 
Himself, but by the successors of the Apostles," a term 
which, in the estimation of the Tractarians, excluded all 
ministers who did not possess Episcopal ordination. 
Here we have the essence of Sacerdotalism, taught by 
the founders of the Oxford Movement within a month 
from its birth. In 1835 Newman declared, in his "Ad 
vertisement " to the second volume of the Tracts for the 
Times, that "the essence of Sectarian Doctrine" was found 
in those who " consider faith, and not the Sacraments, as 
the instrument of justification" : 

"We have," he exclaimed, "almost embraced the doctrine, that 
God conveys grace only through the instrumentality of the mental 
energies, that is, through faith, prayer, active spiritual contempla 
tions, or (what is called) communion with God, in contradiction to 
the primitive view, according to which the Church and her Sacra 
ments are the ordained and direct visible means of conveying to the 
soul what is in itself supernatural and unseen." 2 

1 Percival s Collection of Papers connected with the Theological Movement of 
1833, p. 12. "James Skinner," p. 2. 

2 Tracts for the Times, vol. ii. p. vi. 


This doctrine, that tf visible " things, viz., priests and 
Sacramental elements, " convey to the soul " Divine grace, 
instead of its being conveyed " through faith " and by 
"communion with God," has been the general teaching 
of the Tractarians and their successors from 1833 to the 
present time. In recent years, however, it has been ex 
pressed in clearer and more daring language. The so- 
called " Cowley Fathers " teach that : 

" They (priests) are peacemakers under Him who carry on this 
work for Him, applying the precious Blood to the souls of men by 
the Sacraments for the remission of sins." 1 

The Rev. Edward Stuart, formerly Vicar of St. Mary 
Magdalene, Munster Square, London, actually had the 
daring to write : 

" God alone is the Giver of all spiritual life and grace and favour, 
and yet we are not bid to go direct to God for these gifts (for that 
right we forfeited at the Fall), but we are to go to the Church which 
stands between us and God in its appointed sphere." 2 

On the subject of the Bible as the only Rule of Faith, 
and the right and duty of Private Judgment in its inter 
pretation, the teaching of Evangelical Churchmen is, as 
I have just asserted, irreconcilably opposed to that of 
Tractarians and Ritualists. As early as the month of 
September 1833 only two months after the birth of 
the Oxford Movement Mr. Newman published his views 
on these gravely important questions. No amount of 
sophistry could persuade a Protestant Churchman to 
accept his teaching : 

"Surely," wrote Mr. Newman, "the Sacred Volume was never 
intended, and is not adapted, to teach us our creed ; however certain 
it is that we can prove our creed from it, when it has once been 
taught us, and in spite of individual producible exceptions to the 
general rule. From the very first, that rule has been, as a matter of 
fact, that the Church should teach the truth, and then should appeal 
to Scripture in vindication of its own teaching. And from the first, it 
has been the error of heretics to neglect the information thus pro- 

1 The Evangelist Library : Exposition of the Beatitudes > p. 31. 

2 The Mediation of the Church. By the Rev. Edward Stuart, p. 9. 


vided for them, and to attempt of themselves a work to which they 
are unequal, the eliciting a systematic doctrine from the scattered 
notices of the truth which Scripture contains. . . . The insufficiency 
of the mere private study of Holy Scripture for arriving at the exact 
and entire truth which Scripture really contains, is shown by the 
fact, that creeds and teachers have ever been divinely provided." l 

When, in 1837, Mr. Newman published his Lectures on 
Popular Protestantism, he expressed himself more clearly 
and strongly : 

"Accordingly," he said, "acute men among them [Protestants] 
see that the very elementary notion which they have adopted, of the 
Bible without note or comment being the sole authoritative Judge in 
controversies of faith, is a self-destructive principle." 2 

"For though we consider Scripture a satisfactory, we do not con 
sider it our sole informant in divine truths. We have another source 
of information in reserve, as I shall presently show. . . . We rely 
on Antiquity to strengthen such intimations of doctrine as are but 
faintly, though really, given in Scripture." 3 

"I would not deny as an abstract proposition that a Christian 
may gain the whole truth from the Scriptures, but would maintain 
that the chances are very seriously against a given individual. I 
would not deny, rather I maintain that a religious, wise, and in 
tellectually gifted man will succeed : but who answers to this de 
scription but the collective Church ? " 4 

Of the Rev. Richard Hurrell Froude, one of the 
principal founders of the Tractarian Movement, Cardinal 
Newman states that : " He felt scorn of the maxim, 
The Bible and the Bible only is the religion of Pro 
testants ; and he gloried in accepting Tradition as a main 
instrument of religious teaching." 5 

A refutation of the assertions in these extracts would 
take up several chapters of this work, and would be 
generally considered out of place here. But I am happy 
to state that they have all been ably and amply discussed 
and refuted in Dean Goode s Divine Rule of Faith and 

1 The Artans in the Fourth Century. By the Rev. J. H. Newman, p. 50, 
7th edition. 

2 Newman s Via Media, vol. i. p. 27, edition 1891. 

3 Ibid. pp. 28, 29. 

4 Ibid. p. 158. 

6 Newman s Apologia Pro Vita Stta, 1st edition, p. 85. 


Practice? one of the most valuable works on the subject 
ever produced by an Evangelical Churchman. It seems 
a pity that it has never yet been issued in a condensed 
form in one volume. I need only remark here that once 
a Christian man gives up the theory that the Bible and 
the Bible alone contains a perfect Rule of Faith, and at 
the same time discards the use of Private Judgment, he is 
open to believe any false doctrine, however preposterous 
it may be. The ridiculous superstitions now advocated 
by the Ritualists may be appealed to in proof of this 

Who was the founder of the Oxford Movement ? 
Cardinal Newman asserts that "the true and primary 
author of it " was the Rev. John Keble. 2 No doubt 
Newman was better qualified than any other man to 
express an opinion on this question, yet no one who has 
carefully studied the early history of the Movement can 
fail to see that the principal worker and the most prominent 
figure was Newman himself. The ostensible cause of its 
birth was the alleged encroachments of the State on the 
province of the Church, more especially as manifested in 
the proposal of the Irish Church Temporalities Bill to 
suppress a large number of the Bishoprics of the Church 
of Ireland, and the demands of men like Dr. Arnold to 
enlarge the borders of the Establishment so as to embrace 
Dissenters. The real reason was the desire to exalt the 
clergy into a sacerdotal caste, and to bring the laity under 
the rule of the priesthood, with a view to the Reunion of 
Christendom. The way for the movement had been pre 
pared by the publication of Keble s Christian Year in 1827, 
and many of the chief actors had themselves been prepared 
by study and conversations with each other, for the part they 
were about to take in the work before them. It is quite a 
mistake to suppose that the founders commenced the 
Oxford Movement while sound Protestants. I know that 
Newman is said to have been originally an Evangelical. 

1 The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, 2nd edition. By William Goode, 
M.A. Three vols. London : J. H. Jackson. 1853. 

2 Newman s Apologia, p. 75. 


It is true that he was brought up under Evangelical in 
fluence, but I do not believe that he ever accepted the 
system in its entirety. A true Evangelical is one in heart 
as well as in name, whose soul and life are moved by its 
Gospel teaching, and not merely his intellect. Much ado 
is made about his " conversion " in his young days, yet 
after all it is evident that what he meant by it was some 
thing different from what Evangelicals themselves mean 
by the term "conversion." In his " Autobiographical 
Memoir," written in 1874, he speaks of himself in the 
third person. In it he affirms : 

"And, in truth, much as he [Newman] owed to the Evangelical 
teaching, so it was he never had been a genuine Evangelical. That 
teaching had been a great blessing for England; . . . but, after all, the 
Evangelical teaching, considered as a system and in what was peculiar 
to itself, had from the first failed to find a response in his own 
religious experience, as afterwards in his parochial. He had indeed 
been converted by it to a spiritual life, and so far his experience 
bore witness to its truth ; but he had not been converted in that 
special way which it laid down as imperative, but so plainly against 
rule, as to make it very doubtful in the eyes of normal Evangelicals 
whether he had really been converted at all. Indeed, at various times 
of his life, as, for instance, after the publication of his Apologia, 
letters, kindly intended, were addressed to him by strangers or 
anonymous writers, assuring him that he did not yet know what 
conversion meant, and that the all-important change had still to be 
wrought in him if he was to be saved. . . . He [Newman] was sensible 
that he had ever been wanting in those special Evangelical ex 
periences which, like the grip of the hand or other prescribed signs 
of a secret society, are the sure token of a member." 1 

It is interesting to note the various steps by which 
Newman at length reached the position he held at the 
birth of the Oxford Movement. He tells us that when 
he was not quite ten years old he drew, in a " verse 
book " in his possession, " the figure of a solid cross 
upright, and next to it is, what may indeed be meant 
for a necklace, but what I cannot make out to be any 
thing else than a set of beads suspended, with a little 

1 Letters and Correspondence of J. H. Newman, ist edition, vol. i. pp. 122, 


cross attached." 1 Newman tells us that when he was 
fifteen years old he "was very superstitious, and for 
some time previous to my conversion used constantly 
to cross myself on going into the dark." 5 In 1823 
he began to believe in the doctrine of Apostolic Suc 
cession. 3 His first sermon after his ordination which 
event took place on June 13, 1824 implied in its tone 
a denial of Baptismal Regeneration ; but it was not long 
afterwards when he accepted that doctrine, having been 
persuaded into believing it from reading Archbishop 
Sumner s Treatise on Apostolic Preaching. This book, he 
asserts, " was successful beyond anything else in rooting 
out Evangelical doctrines" from his creed. 4 In 1824 
his brother, F. W. Newman, was shocked, while arranging 
the furniture in some new rooms he was about to occupy, 
to find a beautiful engraving of the Blessed Virgin Mary 
fixed up, and that it was a present from his brother, John 
Henry. 5 About a year later Dr. Hawkins taught him to 
believe in the doctrine of Tradition, and that "the sacred 
text [of the Bible] was never intended to teach doctrine, 
but only to prove it, and that if we would learn doctrine 
we must have recourse to the formularies of the Church." 6 
In 1832 Newman had gone so far wrong on this gravely 
important subject as to write to Dr. Pusey : "As to 
Scripture being practically sufficient for making the 
Christian, it seems to me a mere dream." 7 

As early as his fifteenth year Newman " became most 
firmly convinced that the Pope was the Antichrist pre 
dicted by Daniel, St. Paul, and St. John," and he states 
that his " imagination was stained by the effects of this 
doctrine up to the year 1843 ; it had been obliterated 
from my reason and judgment at an earlier date." * It is, 
indeed, marvellous how any one who ever held such 
views as to the Pope could go over to Rome. With this 
view of Antichrist Newman also believed that Rome was 

1 Apologia Pro Vita Sua, p. 57. 2 Ibid. p. 56. 3 Ibid. p. 67. 

4 Newman s Letters and Correspondence, vol. i. p. 120. 

5 The Early History of Cardinal Newman. By his Brother, F. W. Newman, 
p. 1 8. 

6 Apologia, p. 66. 7 Life of Dr. Pusey ^ vol. i. p. 233. 8 Apologia, p. 63. 


the Babylon of the Revelation ; but while at Naples, early 
in 1833, he adopted the view held by many Roman 
Catholic writers, and in substance sanctioned in the 
notes to the Rheims New Testament, that Babylon was 
the city of Rome, but not the Church of Rome. He 
communicated his views on this question to his friend, 
the Rev. S. Rickards : 

"A notion has struck me," he wrote, "on reading the Revelation 
again and again, that the Rome there mentioned is Rome considered 
as a city or a//0#, without any reference to the question whether it 
be Christian or Pagan. As a seat of government, it was the first 
cruel persecutor of the Church, and as such condemned to suffer 
God s judgments, which had not yet been fully poured out upon it, 
from the plain fact that it still exists. Babylon is gone. Rome is a 
city still, and judgments await her therefore." 1 

By adopting this theory, one of the greatest barriers 
against reunion with the Church of Rome is removed 
in the mind of any one who accepts it. The command 
of God, as to Babylon the Great, is " Come out of her, 
my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that 
ye receive not of her plagues." If the Church of Rome 
be identical with Babylon, this divine command, " Come 
out of her," settles the whole question as to union with 
her, either on the part of individuals or Churches. And 
that she is Babylon has been most ably and learnedly 
proved by the late Bishop Christopher Wordsworth, of 
Lincoln (an old-fashioned High Churchman), in his little 
book, entitled Union with Rome, which has never yet been 

Sometime before 1828, when Dr. Copleston resigned 
jthe office of Provost of Oriel College, Oxford, Mr. New 
man s conduct seems to have alarmed one, at least, of his 
intimate friends. His brother writes : 

"The Provost of Oriel (Dr., afterwards Bishop, Copleston), 
admired him [Blanco White], and invited him to join the Fellows 

1 Newman s Letters, vol. i. p. 388. 

2 Rev. xviii. 4. 


table ; but breakfast and tea he shared with us. He and my brother 
[John Henry Newman], enjoyed the violin together. I gradually 
heard their theological talk, which was apt to end by Blanco s sharp 
warning : * Ah ! Newman ! if you follow that clue it will draw you 
into Catholic error. But I believe he meant into self-flagellation, 
maceration of the body." 1 

Mr. Blanco White was a converted Roman Catholic 
priest of great learning, and, no doubt, he could see more 
clearly than others around him in what direction Newman 
was at that time moving. On this occasion White was a 
true prophet. In 1829 Newman sent his mother and 
sisters two sermons which he had published. In ac 
knowledging their receipt his sister remarked : " We have 
long since read your two sermons ; they are very High 
Church." 5 By the year 1831 Newman appears to 
have become dissatisfied with the present Book of 
Common Prayer, and wished to restore one which had 
in it a considerable amount of Romanism. " You may 
assure Rickards from me," he wrote to his sister, on Oct. 
1 6, 1831, " that I am a reformer as much as he can be. I 
should like (as far as I can understand the matter), to substi 
tute the First Prayer Book of King Edward for the present 
one." 3 His ideas at that time of what a reformer should 
accomplish were set forth very clearly in his Apologia 
Pro Vita Sua: 

"I saw," wrote Newman, "that Reformation principles were 
powerless to rescue her [the Church of England]. As to leaving 
her, the thought never crossed my imagination ; still, I ever kept 
before me that there was something greater than the Established 
Church, and that was the Church Catholic and Apostolic, set up 
from the beginning, of which she was but the local presence and 
organ. She was nothing, unless she was this. She must be dealt 
with strongly, or she would be lost. There was need of a second 
Reformation." 4 

Writing from Rome, March 19, 1833, Newman told 
Dr. Pusey what he even then thought of the Protestant 

1 Early History of Cardinal Newman, p. 13. 

2 Newman s Letters, vol. i. p. 215. * Ibid. vol. i. p. 250. 
4 Apologia, p. 95. 


Reformation. " I wish/ he wrote, " I could make up 
my mind whether the 1260 years of Captivity begin 
with Constantine it seems a remarkable coincidence that 
its termination should fall about on the Reformation 
(I speak from memory) which, amid good, has been the 
source of all the infidelity, the second woe, which is now 
overspreading the earth." l 

At about the same time Newman defined more clearly 
what he then meant by " a second Reformation." " It 
would be," he said, " in fact a second Reformation : a better 
Reformation, for it would be a return, not to the sixteenth 
century, but to the seventeenth." Unfortunately, as we 
shall see later on, Newman s " second Reformation " 
developed into a return, not merely to the seventeenth 
century, but to a period anterior to the sixteenth century 

1 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. i. p. 249. 

2 Newman s Apologia, p. 113. 



The Birth of the Oxford Movement Newman and Froude s Interview 
with Wiseman at Rome Its deep impression on Wiseman s mind 
His bright expectations from it Was the Tractarian Movement 
born in Oxford or Rome ? Keble s sermon on National Apostasy 
He denounces the State and exalts the Church Archbishop Sumner 
on Foreign Protestant Non-Episcopal Pastors The Tractarians on 
Church and State Generally favourable to entire separation Dr. 
Arnold s Principles of Church Reform Its good and objectionable 
features Newman wants to "make a row in the world" The Con 
ference at Hadleigh The Association of Friends of the Church Its 
plans of work Efforts to win Evangelical Churchmen " The 
seeds of revolution planted " They wished to bring back the prin 
ciples of Laud Clerical and Lay addresses to the Archbishop of 
Canterbury The Tracts for the Times Their Romeward tendency 
Newman called a " Papist" Names of the writers of the Tracts 
for the Times Dr. Pusey joins the Movement Fasting Roman 
Catholic opinion of the Tracts Exalting the priesthood Dr. 
Arnold s faithful warning. 

ON Tuesday, July 9, 1833, Mr. Newman returned to 
Oxford from a prolonged visit to Italy. The Rev. R. H. 
Froude, who had been his companion during a portion 
of his journey, had returned some time before. " The 
following Sunday/ writes Mr. Newman, "July I4th, Mr. 
Keble preached the Assize sermon in the University 
pulpit. It was published under the title of National 
Apostasy. I have ever considered and kept the day as 
the start of the religious movement of i833/ ] During 
their travels in Italy, Newman and Froude had two inter 
views with Monsignor Wiseman at Rome, to which the 
latter gentleman ever afterwards attached the highest 
importance, and apparently considered as the real birth 
date of the Oxford Movement. I have already, in the 
ninth chapter of my Secret History of the Oxford Movement, 
referred to this interview, which seems to have been kept 

1 Newman s Apologia, p. 100. 


from the knowledge of the other leaders of the Tractarian 
Movement for some years after. These two gentlemen 
discussed with the Monsignor the conditions upon which 
they could be taken into the Church of Rome, and, 
according to the testimony of one of their friends, the 
Rev. William Palmer, they seem to have thought it 
possible to obtain from the Papal authorities " some dis 
pensation " which " would enable them to communicate 
with Rome without violation of conscience " apparently 
thinking that they could thus " communicate with Rome " 
while remaining as clergymen of the Church of England. 
The impression produced on the mind of Wiseman by 
these visits was deep and lasting. He evidently was led 
to understand that a Movement towards Corporate Re 
union was about to be started at Oxford, by men whom 
he considered as of a " truly Catholic turn of mind ; " 
and so much impressed was he by the interviews that he 
determined to abandon his favourite studies and devote 
himself to " the new era " which would soon dawn upon 
England. Cardinal Wiseman s Roman Catholic bio 
grapher relates of one of these meetings at Rome : 

" The interview left Wiseman with two vivid impressions sparks 
which the course of the Oxford Movement fanned later into a flame. 
He was struck by the truly Catholic temper of mind of the two men, 
and by their utter sincerity. Both these impressions were contrary 
to the views current among his co-religionists alike in Rome 
and] in England, who thought that Catholic sympathies in the 
Anglican Church were, for the most part, purely superficial and 
aesthetic. Where they were deeper, adherence to the Church of 
England then beyond question predominantly Protestant in its 
religious tone was supposed to be incompatible with sincerity. 
Wiseman judged differently from this brief visit, and, with character 
istic hopefulness, made up his mind that if these men represented 
the rising generation at Oxford, the centre of English religious life, 
great changes were in store for the country. The existence of such 
opinions in Oxford itself was not, indeed, a justification of Father 
Spencer s chimerical hopes. But it promised no longer the acces 
sion of units only in a people of millions. A movement which was 
in its degree corporate was apparently beginning among leading 
minds within the Anglican Church. Such a movement must have 


peculiar elements of power, resulting from its claim to be national 
as well as Catholic. It appealed to English Churchmen as the 
work of their friends, while the hereditary supporters of the Roman 
See necessarily appeared in a measure to assail them as foes. From 
this year dates the rise of a new hopefulness in Wiseman. From 
the day of Newman and Froude s visit to me, he wrote in 1847, 
* never for an instant did I waver in my conviction that a new era 
had commenced in England ... to this grand object I devoted 
myself . . . the favourite studies of former years were abandoned 
for the pursuit of this aim alone. " 1 

There can be no doubt that Wiseman s biographer 
accurately describes his attitude towards the Oxford 
Movement from the moment that he had the interview 
with Newman and Froude in Rome, three months before 
the avowed birth of the Movement. The biographer s 
statements are confirmed by the writings of Wiseman 
himself. In the preface to the second volume of his 
Essays, Wiseman writes : 

" I have already alluded, in the preface to the first volume, as 
well as in the body of this, to the first circumstance which turned my 
attention to the wonderful movement then commenced in England 
the visit which is recorded in Froude s Remains. FROM THAT 
MOMENT it took the uppermost place in my thoughts^ and became the 
object of their intensest interest." 2 

In a footnote to the reprint of his review of Fronde s 
Remains, and written fourteen years after its appearance 
in the Dublin Review, Wiseman remarks : 

" In p. 307 of the Remains, will be found an account of what 
remains marked, with gratitude in my mind, as an epoch in my life 
the visit which Mr. Froude unexpectedly paid me, in company 
with one [Newman] who never afterwards departed from my 
thoughts, and whose eloquent pleadings for the faith have endeared 
him to every Catholic heart. For many years it had been a promise 
of my affection to St. Philip, that I would endeavour, should oppor 
tunity be afforded me, to introduce his beautiful Institute into 
England. But little could I foresee, that when I received that most 
welcome visit, I was in company with its future founder. FROM THAT 

1 Life and Times of Cardinal Wiseman. By Wilfrid Ward, vol i. pp. 1 18, 119. 

2 Wiseman s Essays on Various Subjects, vol. ii. p. vi. 


HOUR, however, I matched with intense interest and love the Move 
ment of which I THEN caught the first glimpse. My studies changed 
iheir course, the bent of my mind was altered, in the strong desire 
to co-operate with the new mercies of Providence." 1 

We may here well ask, in amazement, What could 
Newman and Froude have told Monsignor Wiseman, at 
this secret interview, which led him to alter greatly 
the course of his life, to form apparently extravagant 
hopes for the future, and such blessings for the 
Church of Rome, as the result of their forthcoming 
labours in the Church of England ? A really adequate 
report of their interview will, I fear, never be given to 
the public. But it is evident that these founders of the 
Oxford Movement consulted with this Roman prelate as 
to their plans for the future, and gave him clearly to 
understand that their work would be on " Catholic " lines. 
Nothing less than information of this kind would ever have 
led Wiseman to look upon their call on him as a " most 
welcome visit," or made him ever afterwards to think of 
it as " an epoch " in his life. " From THAT HOUR," he 
declares, " I watched with intense interest and love the 
Movement of which / THEN caught the first glimpse." 
From that memorable day, he assures us, he was certain 
that " a new era had commenced in England," and he 
determined to give up his " favourite studies," and instead 
of following them he gave "the uppermost place in his 
thoughts," and his most zealous labours to help on "with 
intense interest and love the Movement " of which he 
" then caught the first glimpse," revealed to him, there can 
be no reasonable doubt, by Newman and Froude. These 
founders of the Romeward Movement do not appear to 
have, at first, consulted the Archbishops of the Church of 
England. They thought, no doubt, that their schemes 
would have a better chance of success if they first con 
sulted a prelate of that Church which has ever been the 
bitterest enemy of the Church of England. No doubt, 
from their own standpoint, they acted wisely. But their 
most shameful conduct naturally suggests the important 

1 Wiseman s Essays on Various Subjects, vol. ii. pp. 94, 95, note. 


question, Was the Oxford Movement really born in 
Oxford, or had it its birth in Rome ? 

Keble s sermon on National Apostasy, with which 
Newman considered that the Tractarian campaign com 
menced, was in reality a denunciation of the State, and 
an exaltation of the Church. He mourned over the 
" impatience under pastoral control," which he considered 
was one of the characteristics of the day, and " a never- 
failing symptom of an unchristian temper." ] He was 
particularly indignant at any want of respect shown to 
the " Successors of the Apostles," meaning, of course, the 
Episcopally ordained clergy only. " Disrespect to the 
Successors of the Apostles, as such," he exclaimed, "is an 
unquestionable symptom of enmity to Him, who gave 
them their commission at first, and has pledged Himself 
to be with them for ever. Suppose such disrespect general 
and national . . . that nation, how highly soever she may 
think of her own religion and morality, stands convicted 
in His sight of a direct disavowal of His sovereignty." 2 
And all this respect he claimed for the clergy, quite apart 
from their personal character. Apparently, no one, in 
the opinion of Mr. Keble, should show any " disrespect " 
to a " Successor of the Apostles," no matter what his 
character might be. On this occasion Mr. Keble took the 
gloomiest view of the condition of the country, affirming 
that it " is fast becoming hostile to the Church, and 
cannot therefore long be the friend of God " 3 an 
assertion which implies that no Dissenter, who is hostile 
to the Church of England, can be " the friend of God." 
He defined the " Church," in this sermon, as tl the laity, as 
well as the clergy in their three orders the whole body 
of Christians united, according to the will of Jesus Christ, 
under the Successors of the Apostles." 4 From this it 
manifestly follows that the " whole body of Christians " 
are united only under those " Successors of the Apostles " 
who are divided into "three orders;" and therefore no non- 

1 National Apostasy Considered. By John Keble, M.A., p. 18. Oxford: 
Parker. 1833. 

2 Ibid. p. 1 8. 3 Ibid. p. 20. 4 Ibid. p. 21. 


Episcopalian body can possibly be any part of the visible 
Church of God at all. This sermon stamps the Tractarian 
Movement from its commencement as narrow-minded 
and bigoted; and void of true Catholicity. The whole 
sermon was a glorification of the clerical order at the 
expense of the State. 

It is refreshing to turn from such assertions as those 
of Keble to the broad-minded and Christian charity of 
Dr. J. B. Sumner, Archbishop of Canterbury, who, re 
plying to the Brighton Protestant Defence Committee, on 
October 13, 1851, said: 

"It would as little represent my sentiments, as it would ill 
become my station, if I should be suspected of undervaluing the 
perfect constitution of the Church of England. It is our great 
privilege to enjoy apostolical discipline, together with apostolical 
doctrine. But we do not disparage these advantages when we 
acknowledge our conviction that foreign Protestants who teach 
apostolical doctrine though not under apostolical discipline, may 
yet be owned of God as faithful Ministers of His Word and Sacra 
ments, and enjoy His blessing on their labours." 1 

And there was surely much wisdom in what the late 
Duke of Argyll (a Presbyterian) said at a meeting in 
London in May 1851: "Remember too," he said, "that 
in after times, when influences come to operate upon the 
character of the English Church, similar to those which 
you are dreading now, in the latter end of the reign of 
Elizabeth, and of the succeeding Stuarts, then was the 
time when there was a withdrawal of sympathy from the 
other non-episcopal communions. You will find as an 
historical fact that the feeling of sympathy with other 
Protestant communions, non-episcopal, was coincident 
with the best and most Protestant times of the Church 
of England, whilst the withdrawal of that sympathy was 
coincident with times when Romish tendencies and Romish 
influences began to invade that Church." 2 

It seems to have been forgotten in the present day, 
that many of the leaders of the Tractarian party were 

1 Guardian, October 29, 1851, p. 761. 

2 Gttardian, May 14, 1851, p. 348. 


from its very birth favourable to the entire separation of 
the Church of England from State control. Mr. F. W. 
Newman tells us that, on one occasion, when he visited his 
brother, Dr. Newman, at Birmingham, soon after the 
Colenso Case was ended, the future Cardinal said to 
him : 

"When in 1833 we met to start the Tracts for the Times, we 
thought it only prudent to be frank to one another, and we all 
submitted to free questioning on every important subject : among 
them, the Union of Church and State. To our astonishment we 
found that, one and all, we desired entire separation. The book 
on Scotch Episcopalianism (ascribed to Archbishop Whately) had 
converted us. Is this a secret? asked I. Not at all/ was his 
reply, tell it as widely as you choose. " l 

I do not wonder that Mr. F. W. Newman adds, in 
relating this anecdote : " I am amused to find, that while 
the clergy were looking to the Puseyites as their defence 
against the formidable Dissenters, those very Puseyites 
were on the side of the foe." In his Apologia, Newman 
admits that Whately fixed in his mind " those anti-Eras- 
tian views of Church polity which were one of the most 
prominent features of the Tractarian Movement," and that 
his work on Scotch Episcopalianism " had a gradual but 
a deep effect" upon his mind. 2 And yet, on August 14, 
1833, Mr. R. H. Froude was able to announce that New 
man had agreed to a declaration containing the following 
clauses : " IV. We protest against all efforts directed 
to the subversion of existing institutions, or to the separa 
tion of Church and State ; V. We think it a duty steadily 
to contemplate and provide for the contingency of such 
a separation." Mr. Froude added : " Keble demurs to 
these, because he thinks the union of Church and State, as 
it is now understood, actually sinful." 3 The Rev. William 
Palmer, of Worcester College, Oxford, who was for several 
years a leader of the Tractarian party until its rapid 

1 The Early History of Cardinal Newman^ p. 37. 

2 4* logia, pp. 69, 71. 

8 A Collection of Papers Connected with the Theological Movement of 1833. 
By the Hon. and Rev. A. P. Percival, 2nd edition, p. 12. 


progress towards Romanism alarmed him, states that at 
the commencement of the movement " there was some 
difference of opinion on the question of the union of 
Church and State, which some of our friends seemed 
inclined to regard as an evil ; while I (and perhaps 
another), was desirous to maintain this union." This 
statement shows that only one or perhaps two of the 
party were in favour of the union of Church and State. 
Mr. Froude himself seems to have anticipated a separation, 
and to have looked forward to it with hope. Writing 
from Rome, March 16, 1833, he remarks: " To be 
sure it would be a great thing to have a true Church in 
Germany ; in Scotland it seems to be thriving, and if the 
State will but kick us off we may yet do in England." 2 
In the following August Froude wrote to another friend 
mentioning that a sermon which he had written had 
met with strong approbation from an unnamed gentle 
man, and adding : 

" My subject is the duty of contemplating the contingency of a 
separation between Church and State, and of providing against it, 
i.e. by studying the principles of ecclesiastical subordination, so 
that when the law of the land ceases to enforce this, we may have a 
law within ourselves to supply its place." 3 

Although, as we have seen, early in August, Newman 
had agreed to a protest against efforts being put forth for 
" the separation of Church and State," yet, on the 3ist 
of the same month, he wrote a letter to an intimate friend, 
Mr. ]. W. Bowden, in which, by contrast, his double- 
dealing is clearly revealed : 

" Not," wrote Newman, " that I would advocate a separation of 
Church and State unless the nation does more tyrannical things 
against us ; but I do feel I should be glad if it were done and over, 
much as the nation would lose by it, for I fear the Church is being 
corrupted by the union." 4 

1 Narrative of Events Connected with the Tracts for the Times. By William 
Palmer, edition 1883, p. 103. 

2 Froude s Remains, vol. i. p. 302. 

3 Ibid. p. 323. 

4 Newman s Letters, vol. i. p. 449. 


What the Tractarian party, as a whole, seemed to 
desire in the relations of Church and State was, perhaps, 
accurately expressed in No. 59 of the Tracts for the Times, 
dated April 25, 1835, and written by Mr. R. H. Froude. 
It pleads for "State Protection" for the Church, and 
protests against " State Interference " with its concerns. 
The early Tractarians were alarmed at what seemed to 
them the increasing encroachments of the State on the 
province of the Church. They believed that the Govern 
ment of the day were in favour of a Revision of the 
Liturgy with a view to a comprehension of Dissenters 
within the pale of the Established Church ; and they were 
certainly made extremely angry by the publication of Dr. 
Arnold s pamphlet on Principles of Church Reform, which 
was issued from the press early in 1833, and obtained a 
very large circulation. 1 It created a great sensation by its 
daring proposal to "extinguish Dissent" "by comprehen 
sion." Apart from the main object of the pamphlet, it 
contained several expressions which must have been pecu 
liarly distasteful to the rising party of Sacerdotalists. In 
it Dr. Arnold declared that Christianity " has provided 
in the strongest manner against superstition and priest 
craft " ; 2 and he expressed himself as " ashamed " of " the 
petty tyranny of Laud " ; 3 affirming that " the mischievous 
confusion of the Christian ministry with a priesthood, that 
anything can be lawful for a Christian layman which is 
unlawful for a Christian minister," was " a most ground 
less superstition." 4 

" I may be allowed to express an earnest hope," wrote Dr. 
Arnold, "that if ever an union with Dissenters be attempted, and 
it should thus become necessary to alter our present terms of com 
munion, the determining on the alterations to be made should never 
be committed to a Convocation, or to any commission consisting of 
clergymen alone. . . . Laymen have no right to shift from their own 
shoulders an important part of Christian responsibility ; and as no 
educated layman individually is justified in taking his own faith upon 

1 Principles of Church Reform. By Thomas Arnold, D.D., Head Master of 
Rugby School. London : B. Fellowes. 1833. 

2 Ibid, 2nd edition, p. n. 3 Ibid. p. 20. 4 Ibid. p. 62. 


trust from a clergyman, so neither are the laity, as a body, warranted 
in taking the national faith in the same way. If ever it should be 
thought right to appoint commissioners to revise the Articles, it is of 
paramount importance, in order to save the plan from utter failure, 
that a sufficient number of laymen, distinguished for their piety and 
enlarged views, should be added to the ecclesiastical members of 
the commission." l 

I do not wonder that such assertions, and such pro 
posals, made the Tractarians furious with Dr. Arnold. It 
must be admitted that there were valid objections against 
certain portions of his scheme of Church Reform. What 
he really aimed at was to turn the Church of England 
into a kind of ecclesiastical Noah s Ark, in which its 
inmates, however, would remain untamed. A plan for 
including the orthodox Nonconformists only in the Estab 
lishment would no doubt have secured the support of 
many members of the Church of England. In the reign 
of William III. a scheme of comprehension was drawn up 
by a Royal Commission, consisting of the Archbishop of 
York, the Bishops of London, Winchester, St. Asaph, 
Rochester, Carlisle, Exeter, Salisbury, Bangor, and Chester, 
and a large number of lesser Dignitaries and Divines ; 
but unfortunately it was eventually defeated. Dr. Arnold s 
scheme was far more Latitudinarian than that which was 
proposed in the reign of William III. ; for it aimed at 
including Unitarians and Romanists also ; and treated 
Christian doctrine as a matter of little or no importance. 

" Might it not be possible," asked Dr. Arnold, " to constitute a 
Church thoroughly national, thoroughly united, thoroughly Christian, 
which should allow great varieties of opinion, and of ceremonies, 
and forms of worship, according to the various knowledge, and 
habits, and tempers of its members, while it truly held one common 
faith, and trusted in one common Saviour, and worshipped one 
common God ? " 2 

As to Quakers, Roman Catholics, and Unitarians, Dr. 
Arnold admitted that their " differences appear to offer 
greater difficulty " than those amongst ordinary Dis- 

1 Arnold s Principles of Church Reform, pp. 80, 8 1. 

2 Ibid, p, 28. 


senters ; and that so long as these three particular sects 
" preserve exactly their present character, it would seem 
impracticable to comprehend them i^ any national Christian 
Church." But, nevertheless, he was full of hope that 
these difficulties would be removed. " Is it/ he asked, 
" beyond hope, that many who are now Roman Catholics, 
would ere long unite themselves religiously as well as 
politically with the rest of their countrymen ? Lastly, 
with regard to the Unitarians, it seems to me that in 
their case an alteration of our present terms of com 
munion would be especially useful," provided they (the 
Unitarians) would, as to our Saviour, " call him Lord and 
God." 1 In a comprehensive Church of this kind, Dr. 
Arnold, however, insisted on the necessity of an Episcopal 
form of government, though not as a matter of divine right. 
" It will be observed," he wrote, "that the whole of this 
scheme supposes an Episcopal government, and requires 
that all ministers should receive Episcopal ordination." 

Dr. Arnold s scheme of Church Reform was attacked 
from all quarters. His biographer, Dean Stanley, states 
that : " Dissenters objected to its attacks upon what he 
considered their sectarian narrowness ; the clergy of the 
Establishment to its supposed Latitudinarianism ; its advo 
cacy of large reforms repelled the sympathy of many 
Conservatives ; its advocacy of the importance of religious 
institutions repelled the sympathy of many Liberals." 3 It 
is remarkable that, notwithstanding so much violent opposi 
tion from so many quarters, nearly all the plans of Church 
Reform laid down in Dr. Arnold s pamphlet, excepting that 
for Church comprehension, have since been adopted, many 
of them with the hearty approbation of the Ritualists. 
He pleaded for an increased number of Bishops, but 
without seats in the House of Lords ; the " institution of 
diocesan general assemblies " now realised in Diocesan 
Conferences ; for the ordination of Clergymen too poor 
to pay for a University education ; for parochial 

1 Arnold s Principles of Church Reform^ pp. 36, 37. 

2 Ibid. p. 56. 

3 Stanley s Life of Dr. Arnold. Ward, Lock, & Co. s edition, p. 190. 


councils; the removal of sinecures and pluralities ; the 
opening of our Universities to Dissenters ; and that " the 
people should have a more direct check than they have 
at present on the nomination of their ministers/ which 
yet, unfortunately, remains to be realised. 

And so, nominally to oppose the Latitudinarian spirit 
of the age, but in reality to build up a High Church 
Movement opposed to Protestantism, Keble, Newman, 
Froude, Percival, and their disciples banded themselves 
together into a party. Meeting the Rev. Isaac Williams 
one day soon after their work began, Newman said to 
him, " Isaac, we must make a row in the world ! " l No 
one can now deny that the Oxford Movement has made 
" a row in the world." It has torn the Church of 
England asunder, broken up its peace, and rilled it with 
quarrels and dissensions. Those who begin a " row " 
are to be held primarily responsible for it. How the 
work began is related by the Rev. William Palmer : 

" I had not," he writes, " been very intimately acquainted with 
Mr. Newman and Mr. Froude, and was scarcely known to Mr. 
Keble or Mr. Percival, when our deep sense of the wrongs sus 
tained by the Church in the suppression of Bishoprics, and our 
feeling of the necessity of doing whatever was in our power to 
arrest the tide of evil, brought us together in the summer of 1833. 
It was at the beginning of long vacation (when, Mr. Froude being 
almost the only occupant of Oriel College, we frequently met in 
the common room) that the resolution to unite and associate in 
defence of the Church, of her violated liberties, and neglected 
principles, arose. This resolution was immediately acted on ; and 
while I corresponded with Mr. Rose, Mr. Froude communicated 
our design to Mr. Keble. Mr. Newman soon took part in our 
deliberations, on his return from the Continent. The particular 
course which we were to adopt became the subject of much and 
anxious thought; and as it was deemed advisable to confer with 
Mr. Rose on so important a subject, Mr. Froude and myself, after 
some correspondence, visited him at Hadleigh, in July, where I 
also had the pleasure of becoming personally acquainted with Mr. 
Percival, who had been invited to take part in our deliberations. 
The conference at Hadleigh, which continued for nearly a week, 

1 Autobiography of Isaac Williams, p. 63. 


concluded without any specific arrangements being entered into, 
though we all concurred as to the necessity of some mode of com 
bined action, and the expediency of circulating tracts or publica 
tions on ecclesiastical subjects, intended to inculcate sound and 
enlightened principles of attachment to the Church. On our return 
to Oxford, frequent conferences took place at Oriel College, between 
Mr. Froude, Mr. Newman, Mr. Keble, and the writer, in which 
various plans were discussed, and in which especial attention was 
given to the preparation of some formulary of agreement as a basis 
for our Association." * 

Hadleigh was, indeed, a strange place for holding 
such a conference. "The town of Hadleigh/ says Foxe, 
" was one of the first that received the Word of God in 
all England, at the preaching of Master Thomas Bilney, 
by whose industry the Gospel of Christ had such gracious 
success, and took such root there, that a great number of 
that parish became exceeding well learned in the Holy 
Scriptures, as well women as men . . . that the whole 
town seemed rather a university of the learned, than a 
town of cloth-making or labouring people ; and, what most 
is to be commended, they were for the most part faithful 
followers of God s Word in their living." 2 At this period 
Rowland Taylor was rector of Hadleigh, a holy and godly 
man in life and doctrine, and a very decided Protestant. 
Soon after Queen Mary came to the throne, hearing his 
church bells ringing one day, he went into the building 
to ascertain the cause. There, to his utter astonishment, 
he found that his honest communion table had been 
changed for a Popish altar, and a priest was actually 
saying Mass there at the moment, surrounded by armed 
men. Thereupon Dr. Taylor said to the priest, in the 
forcible language common in those days, " Thou devil ! 
Who made thee so bold to enter into this Church of 
Christ to profane and defile it with this abominable 
idolatry ? I command thee, thou Popish wolf, in the 
name of God to avoid hence, and not to presume here, 
with such Popish idolatry, to poison Christ s flock." 3 For 

1 Palmer s Narrative of Events, pp. 101, 102. 

2 Foxe s Acts and Monuments, vol. vi. p. 676, edition 1859. 

3 Ibid. p. 679. 


faithful conduct like this Dr. Taylor was committed to 
prison, and put upon his trial. The principal charges 
against him were his denial of the doctrines of the Real 
Presence and the Sacrifice of the Mass, both of which 
doctrines are now commonly taught by the men who 
are the successors of those who, by a strange coincidence, 
met in Hadleigh Rectory in the month of July 1833. 
And was it not strange indeed, remembering what has 
passed since then, that in the course of a special sermon 
preached in Hadleigh church during this High Church 
conference, the preacher should have said : " I stand 
where the Martyr, Rowland Taylor, stood [i.e. in the 
self-same pulpit from which Taylor preached the Pro 
testant religion]. May God in His mercy give grace 
to the clergy of this day to follow his example, and, if 
need be, to testify for the truth, even unto the death." 1 
In the very spot where the Protestant Reformation began 
in that part of the country, the anti-Reformation Move 
ment first erected its head. What the nature of the 
work done at the Hadleigh Conference was we learn 
from a statement of Mr. Newman made late in his life. 
He remarks that : 

"Between July 25 and 29 a meeting was held at Mr. Rose s 
Rectory at Hadleigh, at which were present Mr. Palmer, Mr. Froude, 
Mr. Percival, and Mr. Rose. Mr. Keble was to have been there, 
but there is evidence that he was not. Mr. Newman was not there. 
There appears to have been some division of opinion at the meeting, 
but two points were agreed on : to fight for the doctrine of the 
Apostolical Succession, and for the integrity of the Prayer Book. 
And two things followed from it the plan of associating for the 
defence of the Church, and the Tracts for the Times. Mr. Newman 
was not at the meeting, but he had already suggested the plan of 
the Association to Froude and Keble, with whom he was in close 
correspondence; and, as soon as the determination was taken to 
move, he, with Mr. Palmer, took the labouring oars in the effort 
which followed." 2 

There was another work undertaken at this Hadleigh 

1 Percival s Collection of Paper s> p. 43. 

2 Newman s Letter s> vol. i. pp. 431, 432. 


Conference. It was that of revising a new Catechism for 
the laity, which was subsequently published under the 
title of The Churchman s Manual. Mr. Percival, in his 
Collection of Papers, reprints the whole of this noteworthy 
document, in which the chief feature is the doctrine of 
Apostolical Succession. The attitude of the new party 
towards Dissenters is indicated by the following unchari 
table statement : 

"In what respect do all the Protestant Dissenters differ from 
the Church ? 

11 A. Each sect has some point of difference peculiar to itself: 
but they all differ in this, namely, that their teachers can produce 
no commission from Christ to exercise the office of Ministers of the 
Gospel. These have departed from the Apostles fellowship." 

From the commencement of the Oxford Movement its 
proceedings were conducted with a considerable amount 
of secrecy. Ample evidence in proof of this assertion is 
given in the first chapter of my Secret History of the Oxford 
Movement, to which I must refer my readers, since I am 
anxious, as far as possible, to avoid travelling over the 
same ground a second time. 

After the Hadleigh Conference the friends of the cause 
held several private meetings at Oriel College, Oxford, for 
the purpose of maturing their plans. Eventually it was 
decided to form " The Association of Friends of the 
Church." The founders of this Association pledged them 
selves to inculcate on all committed to their charge "the 
inestimable privilege of communion with our Lord through 
the successors of the Apostles " ; to " provide and circulate 
books and tracts which may tend to familiarise the ima 
ginations of men to the idea of an Apostolical Commis 
sion " ; to revive " among Churchmen the practice of 
daily Common Prayer, and more frequent participation 
of the Lord s Supper " ; and " to resist any attempt that 
may be made to alter the Liturgy on insufficient autho 
rity, i.e. without the exercise of the free and deliberate 
judgment of the Church on the alterations proposed." It 
will thus be seen that the party did not object in itself to 


any alterations, or Revision of the Liturgy, but only to 
such as were made on " insufficient authority." l 

The intention of the founders of the new Society was 
to form an organisation which should extend through the 
whole of England. For this purpose they issued a series 
of " Suggestions for the Formation of an Association of 
Friends of the Church/ to be composed of both clergy 
and laity. In these Suggestions they asserted that, tf The 
privilege possessed by parties hostile to her [the Church 
of England] doctrine, ritual, and polity, of legislating for 
her, their avowed and increasing efforts against her, their 
close alliance with such as openly reject the Christian 
faith, and the lax and unsound principles of many who 
profess and even think themselves her friends," were 
"calculated to inspire the true members and friends of 
the Church with the deepest uneasiness." The question 
of keeping up the Establishment was pushed on one side 
as of comparatively little importance. "The most obvious 
dangers," said the Suggestions, " are those which impend 
over the Church as an Establishment ; but to these it is 
not here proposed to direct attention. However necessary 
it may be on the proper occasion to resist all measures 
which threaten the security of Ecclesiastical property 
and privileges, still it is felt that there are perils of a 
character more serious than those which beset the politi 
cal rights and temporalities of the clergy." A brief state 
ment of " The Objects of the Association " followed the 
Suggestions. They were as follows : 

" i. To maintain pure and inviolate the doctrines, the services, 
and the discipline of the Church ; that is, to withstand all change 
which involves the denial and suppression of doctrine, a departure 
from primitive practice in religious offices, or innovation upon the 
Apostolical prerogatives, order, and commission of bishops, priests, 
and deacons. 

" 2. To afford Churchmen an opportunity of exchanging their 
sentiments, and co-operating together on a large scale." 2 

It will be observed that these were " objects " which 

1 Percival s Collection of Letters, pp. 13, 14. 

2 Palmer s Narrative of Events, pp. 104, 105. 


might well receive the countenance and aid of Evangelical 
Churchmen. The real objects of the wire-pullers were, in 
it, kept carefully out of sight, in accordance, no doubt, 
with that doctrine of " Reserve in Communicating Religious 
Knowledge," which was so widely adopted by the Tract- 
arians from the commencement of their Movement. On 
September 18, 1833, Newman informed Froude : " Pal 
mer is about to make a journey to Hook and others, and 
has sounded the Evangelicals of Liverpool." ] On Novem 
ber 14, 1833, one of the leaders of the party wrote to a 
Member of Parliament, with reference to the Association : 
" We want to unite all the Church, orthodox and 
Evangelical; clergy, nobility, and people in maintenance 
of our doctrine and polity." A little over two months 
before this letter was written, the Rev. J. B. Mozley 
wrote to his sister (September 3, 1833) a confidential 
letter, in which he revealed the real object of what he 
termed a " Society established for the dissemination of 
High Church principles." 3 With his letter Mr. Mozley 
enclosed some of the Tracts, which he described as "the 
first production of the Society," and added this signi 
ficant opinion : " The fact is, we must not be very 
scrupulous as to views or particular as to sentiments in 
the distribution of these things." 

The promoters of the Association at once set to work to 
push it with all the energy of young and enthusiastic men. 
They visited various parts of the country, taking with them 
copies of an address to the Archbishop of Canterbury, to 
be signed by the clergy. " There was indeed/ says Mr. 
Palmer, " much misapprehension abroad as to our motives, 
and we had no means of explaining those motives, without 
the danger of giving publicity to our proceedings, which, 
in the then state of the public mind on Church matters, 
might have led to dangerous results." 4 Meetings of Church 
men in support of the work of the Association were held 
in various towns, including York, Liverpool, Nottingham, 

1 Newman s Letters, vol. i. p. 458. 

2 Palmer s Narrative of Events, p. 212. 

3 Mozley s Letters, p. 33. 

4 Palmer s Narrative of Events, p. 108. 


Cheltenham, Northampton, Derby, Plymouth, Dorchester, 
Poole, Norwich, Newcastle, Hull, Bristol, Bath, and 
Gloucester. But, says Mr. Palmer, " so great was the 
apprehension at this time, that they did not venture at first 
to assemble openly, for the purpose of recording their 
attachment to the Established Church ; admission was in 
general restricted to those friends who were provided 
with tickets." ] Enthusiastic friends rapidly joined the 
Association, but some of them had their doubts about 
portions of the policy adopted. The Rev. S. Rickards, 
for instance, wrote to Newman, on September 6, 1833 : 
"As far as my opinion goes for anything, I disapprove of 
the concealment of names." * Two days later Newman 
boasted to a friend of the cause : 

" We have set up Church Societies all over the kingdom, or at 
least mean to do so. Already the seeds of revolution are planted 
in Oxfordshire, Berkshire, Devonshire, Gloucestershire, Kent, and 
Suffolk. Our object is to maintain the doctrine of the Apostolical 
Succession and save the Liturgy from illegal alterations. Hitherto 
we have had great success. ... It is no slight thing to be made 
the instrument of handing down the principles of Laud till the time 
comes. . . . " 8 

There is here a provoking omission in Newman s 
letter, as printed in his Letters and Correspondence. What 
"time" did he refer to, when he wrote "till the time 
come " ? And what further would happen when the 
"time" came? Newman s object was evidently that of 
propagating a system which had ever been hateful to Pro 
testants, whether they were Evangelicals or not. And 
yet, with the cunning worthy of a Jesuit, he could boast to 
his friend Froude, two months after, that his real ambition 
was to bring back Laudianism : 

" Evangelicals, as I anticipated, are struck with the Law of 
Liberty and the Sin of the Church [referring, no doubt, to 
expressions in the eighth of the Tracts for the Times^ issued a 
few days previously]. The subject of Discipline, too (I cannot 
doubt), will take them. Surely my game lies among them." 4 

1 Palmer s Narrative of Events, p. 113. 2 Newman s Letters , vol. i. p. 453. 
3 Ibid. p. 454. 4 Ibid. p. 479. 


The men who were sent out into various parts of the 
country to push the new Association received " instruc 
tions " for their guidance, written by Newman, headed 
" Objects of your Journey." They included the follow 
ing : To form local Associations. To instruct the corre 
sponding member. To sound men on certain questions." 
These emissaries were termed by Newman "Propagandists," 
and with the subtlety which characterised him all his life, 
he advised them thus : " If men are afraid of Apostolical 
ground [i.e. the ground of Apostolical Succession], then be 
cautious of saying much about it. If desirous, then re 
commend prudence and silence upon it at present." ] 

The Clerical Address to the Archbishop of Canterbury 
promoted by the Association was extensively signed, and 
when it was presented to his Grace, on February 5, 1834, 
it had received no fewer than 6530 signatures. It was 
presented by a deputation, which included the Deans of 
Lincoln, Carlisle, and Chichester ; the Archdeacons of 
Canterbury, London, Middlesex, Stowe, Bedford, Sarum, 
Brecon, Taunton, Rochester, and St. Albans. Archdeacon 
Froude, father of Rev. R. H. Froude, termed the address 
a " milk and water production " ; 2 but as it played such an 
important part in the early history of the Oxford Move 
ment, I think it well to reproduce it here. It was as 
follows : 

"We, the undersigned Clergy of England and Wales, are de 
sirous of approaching your Grace with the expression of our venera 
tion for the sacred office, to which by Divine Providence you have 
been called, of our respect and affection for your personal character 
and virtues, and of our gratitude for the firmness and discretion 
which you have evinced in a season of peculiar difficulty and 

"At a time, when events are daily passing before us which mark 
the growth of Latitudinarian sentiments, and the ignorance which 
prevails concerning the spiritual claims of the Church, we are espe 
cially anxious to lay before your Grace the assurance of our devoted 
adherence to the Apostolical doctrine and polity of the Church over 
which you preside, and of which we are ministers ; and our deep- 

1 Newman s Letters, vol. ii. p. 4. 2 Ibid. vol. i. p. 492. 


rooted attachment to that venerable Liturgy, in which she has em 
bodied, in the language of ancient piety, the Orthodox and Primitive 

" And while we most earnestly deprecate that restless desire of 
change which would rashly innovate in spiritual matters, we are not 
less solicitous to declare our firm conviction, that should anything, 
from the lapse of years or altered circumstances, require renewal or 
correction, your Grace, and our other spiritual rulers, may rely upon 
the cheerful co-operation and dutiful support of the Clergy in carry 
ing into effect any measures that may tend to revive the discipline 
of ancient times, to strengthen the connection between the Bishops, 
Clergy and people, and to promote the purity, the efficiency, and 
the unity of the Church." 

This Clerical Address to the Archbishop was followed 
by one from the laity of the Church of England, which 
was written by Mr. Joshua Watson and signed by the im 
mense number of 230,000 heads of families. In this 
Address occurred an expression of approval of the alliance 
between the Church and State, which was conspicuous by 
its absence from that which emanated from the clergy. 

" In the preservation, therefore," said the Lay Address, " of this 
our National Church in the integrity of her rights and privileges, and 
in her alliance with the State, we feel that we have an interest no less 
real and no less direct than her immediate ministers ; and we accord 
ingly avow our firm determination to do all that in us lies, in our 
several stations, to uphold unimpaired in its security and efficiency 
that Establishment which we have received as the richest legacy of 
our forefathers." 1 

Although Newman became one of the earliest members 
of the " Association of Friends of the Church/ his heart 
was never in it. He felt himself in fetters while connected 
with it. His imperious will would brook no control. 
"We shall/ he wrote to the Rev. C. Girdlestone, " be truly 
glad of your co-operation, as of one who really fears God 
and wishes to serve Him ; but if you will not, we will march 
past you." 2 And so he "marched past" the chief friends 
of the Association, who were anxious to move forward at 
a slower pace than suited his impetuous temper. He 

1 Churton s Memoir of Joshua Watson, p. 208, 2nd edition. 
a The Early History of Cardinal Newman, p. 77. 


finally broke away from the Association, which soon after 
came to an end. 

The first great work undertaken by Newman after the 
Hadleigh Conference was the commencing of the now 
well-known Tracts for the Times. The first of the series 
was issued on September 9, 1833, and the last on January 
25, 1841. Of these, twenty were issued before the close 
of 1833, thirty in the year 1834, twenty in 1835, seven in 
1836, five in 1837, three in 1838, one in 1839, two in 
1840, and two in 1841. Several of the series were not 
really " Tracts " at all, but large volumes ; Tract LXXXL 
ran into 424 pages. At first they were not offered 
for sale to the public. They were, says Mr. Palmer, 
" privately printed and dispersed amongst friends and 
correspondents in the country." J " Probably," writes 
Cardinal Newman s sister, "they never got into circula 
tion through ordinary trade machinery. They were read 
by thinkers and talkers, they were widely distributed, 
and universally discussed ; but at a vast expense of money, 
trouble, and worry to the writers, and with real difficulty 
to the readers, who could rarely procure them through the 
ordinary channels." : It was not long before they pro 
duced a spirit of well-founded suspicion. One clergyman 
wrote about them : " They have been the cause of more 
injury to the united operations of the Church than can 
well be calculated " ; while another uttered the much 
needed warning : " We must take care how we aid the 
cause of Popery." J Even the earliest of the Tracts fully 
justified the fears of the enlightened friends of the Church 
of England. In Trad I. the Non-Episcopal Churches 
were declared to have no validly ordained Ministers, and 
the doctrine of " Apostolical Succession " was taught in 
unmistakable terms. The Tract was addressed to the 
clergy, to whom Newman said : " We must necessarily 
consider none to be really ordained who have not thus 
been ordained" i.e. by Bishops. While Non-Episcopal 
Ministers were thus to be brought down to the level of 

1 Palmer s Narrative of Events, p. 120. z Newman s Letters, vol. ii. p. 44, 

8 Palmer s Narrative of Events, pp. 226, 227. 


ordinary laymen, the Bishops and the priests were to 
exalt themselves as far above ordinary mortals. tf Exalt," 
he exclaimed to the clergy, " our Holy Fathers the Bishops, 
as the Representatives of the Apostles, and the Angels of 
the Churches; and magnify your office, as being ordained 
by them to take part in their Ministry." In the third 
Tract Newman objected to " Alterations in the Liturgy," 
not, however, on the ground that revision was evil in 
itself, but because of the dangers which at that time would 
have attended it. In a note to the fourth Tract Mr. Keble 
discussed the question, " Where is the competent authority 
for making alterations " in the Liturgy ? And he answered 
it negatively only : " It does not lie in the British Legis 
lature." : In the tenth Tract the Bishops were raised 
almost to an equality with the Apostles. " In one sense 
they [the Apostles] are still alive ; I mean, they did not 
leave the world without appointing persons to take their 
place ; and these persons [ the Bishops ] represent them, 
and may be considered with reference to us, as if 
they were the Apostles." 3 With the Bishops the clergy 
must be exalted also. "Then you [the laity] will honour 
us [the clergy]," says this Tract, tl as those (if I may 
say so) who are intrusted with the keys of heaven 
and hell, ... . as intrusted with the awful and mys 
terious privilege of dispensing Christ s Body and 
Blood." This last sentence was, I believe, the first in 
which the Tractarians taught the Real Presence. I do not 
wonder that directly after this Tract was issued, the Tract 
arians " were called heretics, Papists," as Newman admits 
in a letter which he wrote on December 15, i833, 5 and 
it is not astonishing even to learn that some persons called 
Newman " a Papist " to his face. 6 To a friend, who re 
monstrated with him for his language in Tract X., he 
candidly acknowledged : " In confidence to a friend, I 
can only admit it was imprudent, for I do think we have 
most of us dreadfully low notions of the Blessed Sacra- 

1 Tracts for the Times y No. I. pp. 3, 4. 

2 Ibid. No. IV. p. 8. 3 Ibid. No. X. p. 2. 4 Ibid. pp. 5, 6. 
6 Newman s Letters^ vol. ii. p. 8. 8 Ibid. p. 10. 


ment. I expect to be called a Papist when my opinions 
are known." Startling, then, as Newman s opinion was, 
as expressed in Tract X., that publication only revealed a 
portion of what he really believed. His full faith was 
held in reserve, to be revealed on some more auspicious 

It may be useful to mention here the names of the 
writers of the Tracts for the Times, and the Tracts for which 
each was responsible. My authority for this list is the 
Appendix to the third volume of the Life of Dr. Pusey. 
The Rev. J. H. Newman wrote Nos. i, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 10, 
n, 19, 20, 21, 31, 33, 34, 38, 41, 45, 47, 71, 73, 74, 75, 
76, 79, 82, 83, 85, 88, and 90. The Rev. ]. Keble wrote 
Nos. 4, 13, 40, 52, 54, 57, 60, and 89. The Rev. Thomas 
Keble, Nos. 12, 22, 43, and part of 84, the other part 
being written by the Rev. G. Prevost. The Rev. R. H. 
Froude wrote Nos. 9, 59, and 63. Mr. ]. W. Bowden (a 
layman) wrote Nos. 5, 29, 30, 56, and 58. The Rev. Dr. 
Pusey wrote Nos. 18, 66, 67, 68, 69, 77, and 81. Mr. 
Alfred Menzies, No. 14. The Rev. B. Harrison, Nos. 
1 6, 17, 24, and 49. The Rev. R. F. Wilson, No. 51. 
The Rev. A. Buller, No. 61. The Rev. C. P. Eden, No. 
32. The Rev. H. E. Manning (afterwards Cardinal 
Manning), part of No. 78, the other part being by the 
Rev. C. Marriott. The Rev. Isaac Williams, Nos. 80, 86, 
and 87. The Rev. A. P. Percival, Nos. 23, 35, and 36. 
Nos. 25, 26, 27, 28, 37, 39, 42, 44, 46, 48, 50, 53, 55, 
62, 64, 65, 70, and 72, were reprints from old authors. 

Next to Newman and Keble the most noteworthy of 
all the Tract writers was Dr. Pusey. He did not join the 
Movement at its commencement, and, when he did join, 
the fact was for a time kept a secret from the public. 
As early as November 7, 1833, Newman was able to 
announce to Froude that " Pusey circulates Tracts 2 
On November 13111 he was able to tell another friend of 
the cause that Pusey had joined them, but that his name 
" must not be mentioned as of our party " ; 3 while on 

1 Newman s Letters, vol. i. p. 490. 

2 Ibid. p. 476. 3 Ibid , p . 482> 


December iqth he was able to communicate the good 
news to Mr. F. Rogers (afterwards Lord Blackford) : 
" I have a most admirable Tract from Pusey, but his 
name must not yet be mentioned." l At length, however, 
Pusey was drawn into the net, and became publicly known 
as connected with the Tractarians, and this is how it 
seems to have come about, as related by the Rev. Isaac 
Williams : 

" I had," writes Williams, " up to this time no acquaintance with 
Pusey, but he would (now that we had lost Froude from Oxford) 
join Newman and myself in our walks. They had been Fellows of 
Oriel together, and Newman was the senior. But Pusey s presence 
always checked his lighter and unrestrained mood; and I was 
myself silenced by so awful a person. Yet I always found in him 
something most congenial to myself a nameless something which 
was wanting even in Newman, and, I might almost add, even in 
Keble. But Pusey at this time was not one of us, and I have some 
recollection of a conversation which was the occasion of his joining 
us. He said, smiling to Newman and wrapping his gown around 
him, as he used to do, I think you are too hard upon the "Peculiars," 
as you call them (i.e. the Low Church party) ; you should conciliate 
them. I am thinking of writing a letter myself with that purpose, 
or rather I think it was of printing a letter which had been the 
result of private correspondence. Well, said Newman, suppose 
you let us have it for one of the Tracts ? Oh, no, said Pusey, I 
will not be one of you. This was said in a playful manner, and 
before we parted Newman said, Suppose you let us have that letter 
of yours, which you intend writing, and attach your own name or 
signature to it ? You would then not be mixed up with us, or be in 
any way responsible for the Tracts Well, Pusey said at last, if 
you will let me do that, I will. It was this circumstance of Pusey 
attaching his initials to that Tract that furnished the Record and the 
Low Church party with his name, which they at once attached to 
us all." 2 

Mr. Williams seems to think that it was Pusey s Tract 
on Baptism which was the subject of conversation on this 
occasion, but in this his memory must have been at fault, 
for Pusey s initials were placed on Tract XVIII. (the first 
he wrote), which was issued on December 21, 1833, 

1 Newman s Letters, vol. ii. p. 9. 

2 Autobiography of Isaac Williams, pp. 70-72. 


while the first of those he wrote on Baptism was not 
published until August 24, 1835 one year and eight 
months after. This first of the Tracts written by Pusey, 
was entitled " Thoughts on the Benefits of the System of 
Fasting, Enjoined by Our Church." In urging upon his 
readers the observance of Fasting Dr. Pusey was, to a 
considerable extent, on common ground with Evangelical 
Churchmen, and even \vith Puritans, though he attached 
greater value to the practice than they have done. He 
quoted the Church s Homily of Fasting in support of his 
views, but omitted from his extracts some cautions which 
are, perhaps, as necessary for these times as when they 
were first put forth, such, for instance, as the following : 

" To fast then, with this persuasion of mind, that our fasting and 
other good works can make us good, perfect, and just men, and 
finally bring us to heaven, is a devilish persuasion ; and that fast is 
so far off from pleasing of God, that it refuseth His mercy, and is 
altogether derogatory to the merits of Christ s death and His precious 
blood shedding. This doth the parable of the Pharisee and the 
Publican teach." 1 

It was not quite fair either, on the part of Dr. Pusey, 
to omit any mention of the real reason why so many Fast 
Days are mentioned in the Prayer-Book Calendar. Any 
one who consults Card well s Doctrinal Annals of the 
Reformed Church of England will learn that they were 
appointed, not in the interests of religion, but in the 
interests of the fishermen of the time, who, but for these 
Fast Days, in which fish and not flesh was eaten, would 
have been utterly ruined. They were the days mentioned 
by the Homily on Fasting, as " appointed by public order 
and laws made by Princes, and by the authority of the 
magistrates, upon policy, not respecting any religion at all in 
the same." 2 In 1576 Queen Elizabeth s Council sent a 
letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, requiring him to 
enforce the observance of these Fast Days, and requesting 
him to " give order " to the Ministers in his province that 

1 Homily of Fasting, Part I. 

2 Ibid. Part II. 


they, in their sermons, should teach the people that the 
observance of these days " is not required for any liking 
of Popish ceremonies heretofore used (which utterly are 
detested), but only to maintain the mariners and navy in 
this land, by setting men a fishing." ] 

In January, 1834, the new Tracts for the Times came 
under the notice of Mr. Ambrose Phillipps De Lisle, a 
wealthy Leicestershire squire, and a pervert to Romanism. 
On reading Tract IV. he returned it to the gentleman who 
had lent it to him, with this remarkakle assertion : " Mark 
my words, these Tracts are the beginning of a Catholic 
Movement which will one day end in the return of her 
Church to Catholic unity and the See of Peter." 2 Having 
formed such a hopeful view of the work of the Tractarians 
it is not wonderful to learn that De Lisle spent the best 
years of a prolonged life in supporting the Oxford Move 
ment in the interests of the Pope. The Tract which thus 
impressed this young Roman Catholic squire was an argu 
ment in favour of Apostolic Succession, and it asserted 
that, " Except, therefore, we can show such a warrant 
[that is, of commissioned persons ], we [the clergy] 
cannot be sure that our hands convey the sacrifice; we cannot 
be sure that souls worthily prepared, receiving the bread 
which we break, and the cup of blessing which we bless, 
are partakers of the Body and Blood of Christ." The 
writer further asserted of the Church of England that she 
is " the only Church in this realm which has a right to 
be quite sure that she has the Lord s Body to give to His 
people." J In Tract X., which had been published before 
De Lisle wrote his opinion, Newman urged that the clergy 
should be considered " as if they were the Apostles " ; and 
as saying to the laity : 

"Then you will honour us, with a purer honour than many men 
do now, namely, as those (if I may say so) who are intrusted with 
the keys of heaven and hell, as the heralds of mercy, as the de 
nouncers of woe to wicked men, as intrusted with the awful and 

1 Cardwell s Documentary Annals, vol. i. p. 427. 

2 Li/6 and Letters of Ambrose Phillipps De Lisle, vol. i. p. 199. 
8 Tract No. IV. pp. 2-5. 


mysterious privilege of dispensing Christ s Body and Blood, as far 
greater than the most powerful and wealthiest of men in our unseen 
strength and our heavenly riches." l 

Thus did Priestcraft rear once more its proud head 
in the Reformed Church of England and demand of the 
laity that they should meekly bow their necks to its 
arrogant sway. 

Mr. Francis Lyne, a highly respected layman, when in 
his seventy-ninth year, wrote to me on January u, 
1879, from 5 Seagrave Place, Cheltenham :" The state 
we, as Protestants, are now in was foretold by the Roman 
Catholic party many years ago. My relation, the late Mr. 
John Aclolphus, a notable Q.C., one day on leaving the 
Temple just when the Tracts for the Times appeared 
was joined by a Roman Catholic, and he said: <Ah! 
Adolphus, this is the grandest move for our Church there 
has been since the Reformation. " 

It was not long before voices of warning were heard. 
Dr. Pusey sent his Tract on Fasting to Dr. Arnold, the 
famous Head Master of Rugby, who was not long in finding 
out what way the Tractarians were going. In acknowledg 
ing, on February 18, 1834, the receipt of the Tract, Arnold 
told Pusey a few plain truths, the wisdom of which can 
be seen now after many days. " By the form in which 
your Tract appears, I fear you are lending your co-opera 
tion to a party second to none in the tendency of their 
principles to overthrow the truth of the Gospel. ... I 
stand amazed at some apparent efforts in this Protestant 
Church to set up the idol of Tradition ; that is, to 
render Gibbon s conclusion against Christianity valid, 
by taking, like him, the Fathers and the second and 
subsequent periods of the Christian History as a fair 
specimen of the Apostles and of the true doctrines 
of Christ. But Ignatius will far sooner sink the 
authority of St. Paul and St. John than they com 
municate any portion of theirs to him. The system 

1 Tract No. X. pp. 2-5. 

2 Palmer s Narrative of Events, pp. 226, 227, 


pursued in Oxford seems to be leading to a revival of the 
Nonjurors, a party far too mischievous and too foolish 
ever to be revived with success. But it may be revived 
enough to do harm, to cause the ruin of the Church of England 
first, and, so far as human folly can, to obstruct the pro 
gress of the Church of Christ." 1 

1 Life of Pusey, vol. i. pp. 282, 283. 


The first ," outbreak of Tractism" Dr. Hampden s case Newman on 
Subscription to the Articles He was "not a great friend to them" 
Hampden appointed Regius Professor of Divinity Agitation against 
his appointment Lord Melbourne s letter to Pusey Newman s 
Elucidations Stanley s opinion of them Dr. Wilberforce and 
Hampden Lord Selborne and Dean Church s testimony as to 
Hampden s views The real cause of opposition was Hampden s Pro 
testantism Proof of his Protestantism Extracts from his writings 
Vote of want of confidence by Convocation Hampden s Letter to 
the Archbishop of Canterbury Mr. Macmullen s case Hampden 
apppointed Bishop of Hereford Protest of thirteen Bishops 
Lord John Russell s reply Archdeacon Hare defends Hampden 
A Prosecution commenced Organised by Pusey, Keble, Marriott, 
and Mozley Wilberforce s eleven questions for Hampden His 
answer The Bishop withdraws his Letters of Request Pusey s 
bitter disappointment Tractarian anxiety to prosecute their oppo 
nents Bishop Phillpotts denounces the Episcopal Veto Protests by 
the Dean of Hereford Hampden elected Bishop by the Chapter of 
Hereford Protest in Bow Church An exciting scene Consecra 
tion of Dr. Hampden The new Bishop s sympathisers Addresses 
of confidence. 

WHAT Archbishop Whately termed " the first outbreak of 
Tractism " was directed against the Rev. Dr. R. D. Hamp 
den. In 1832 Dr. Hampden had been selected to preach 
the Bampton Lectures at Oxford, which were subsequently 
published under the title of The Scholastic Philosophy Con 
sidered in its Relation to Christian Theology. These lectures 
were delivered to large congregations ; but do not appear 
to have excited any remarkable attention after their publi 
cation, until their author was appointed, in 1836, Regius 
Professor of Divinity in the University of Oxford, when 
they became the centre round which a fierce contest 
raged, a contest which was renewed with even greater 
violence in 1847, when Dr. Hampden was appointed 

Bishop of Hereford. A pamphlet which he issued in 



1834 added greatly to the flame of Tractarian wrath, and 
was used against its author again and again during the 
succeeding thirteen years. It bore the title of Observations 
on Religious Dissent. With Particular Reference to the Use of 
Religious Tests in the University. It was, in brief, a plea 
for the admission of Dissenters into the University of 
Oxford, on certain conditions. He wished to abolish Sub 
scription to the Thirty-Nine Articles on the part of those 
entering the University, as had already been done in the 
University of Cambridge, and therefore there was nothing 
new in his proposal in itself, though no doubt it seemed 
revolutionary to the authorities of the University of Oxford, 
and was particularly distasteful to those Tractarians who 
wished to keep Dissenters out of the University. Newman 
led the attack on Hampden s pamphlet, a copy of which, 
the author had sent to him on its publication. In thank 
ing him for his courtesy, Newman wrote : " While I re 
spect the tone of piety in which the pamphlet is written, 
I feel an aversion to the principles it professes, as (in my 
opinion), legitimately tending to formal Socinianism." 
Newman s real opinion as to Subscription to the Thirty- 
Nine Articles was given on January n, 1836, in a letter 
which he addressed to Mr. Percival, in the course of which 
his hatred for the study of Christian Evidences, and his 
wish that young men should believe " prior to reason " ; 
and should, without reason, accept what their instructors 
taught them, is clearly manifested. " Shut your eyes, and 
open your mouths, and take what the priests may give you, 
without examination," is a policy which is ever dear to a 
proud Sacerdotal priesthood ; but is quite inconsistent with 
the Scriptural injunction : " Believe not every spirit, 
but try the spirits whether they are of God ; because many 
false prophets are gone out in the world " (i John iv. i). 

"The advantage of subscription (to my mind) is," Newman 
wrote, "its witnessing to the principle that religion is to be ap 
proached with a submission of the understanding. Nothing is so 

1 Newman s Letters, vol. ii. p. 77. 


common, as you must know, as fur young men to approach serious 
subjects as judges, to study them as mere sciences. Aristotle and 
Butler are treated as teachers of a system, not as if there was 
more truth in them than in Jeremy Bentham. The study of the 
Evidences] now popular (such as Paley s), encourages this evil frame 
of mind. The learner is supposed external to the system . . . and 
to have to choose it by an act of reason before he submits to it ; 
whereas, the great lesson of the Gospel is faith, an obeying prior to 
reasoning, and proving its reasonableness by making experiment of 
it a casting of heart and mind into the system and investigating 
the truth by practice. I should say the same of a person in a 
Mahometan country or under any system which was not plainly 
and purely diabolical 1 . . . In an age, then, when this great 
principle is scouted, Subscription to the Articles is a memento and 
a protest, and again actually does, I believe, impress upon the 
minds of young men the teachable and subdued temper expected 
of them. THEY ARE NOT TO REASON, BUT TO OBEY, and this quite 
independently of the degree of accuracy, the wisdom, &c., of the 
Articles themselves. / am no great friend of them, and should 
rejoice to substitute the Creeds for them, were it not for the Roman 
ists, who might be excluded by the plan you suggest of demanding 
certificates of baptism and confirmation." 2 

This is, I think, the first recorded instance in which 
Tractarian dislike to the Thirty-Nine Articles was clearly 
expressed. In later years members of the party spoke out 
more emphatically. A collection of extracts from their 
utterances on this subject will be found in the Appendix 
to my Secret History of the Oxford Movement. Newman s 
exhortation to young men " NOT TO REASON, BUT TO 
OBEY," reminds me of the advice of a priestly member 
of the English Church Union. " It was not," said the 
Rev. Luke Rivington, at a meeting of the Union, January 
14, 1868, " that he undervalued the office of the laity, 
whose high and noble prerogative it was to listen and obey ; 
but it was for the ministers of the Church to magnify 
their office." J A Ritualistic newspaper recently put the 
matter thus : " In the Catholic Church it is for the clergy 

^ ! In other words, this is equivalent to advising a young man to swallow any 
spiritual poison offered to him first, and after it has done its deadly work he 
will be able to refuse to take any more of it. Such advice would justify a belief 
in any lying legend taught by a Roman Catholic priest. 

2 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. i. p. 301. 

3 English Church Union Monthly Circular, vol. for 1868, p. 65. 


to teach and govern, for the people to obey." * This 
kind of teaching tends to make slaves of the laity, and 
enables the clergy to assume the position of " being lords 
over God s heritage" (i Peter v. 3). 

There was a Latitudinarian spirit throughout Dr. 
Hampden s pamphlet which I, for one, deeply regret, 
especially in his remarks on Unitarians. He avowed 
himself as "favourable to a removal of all tests, so far 
as they are employed as securities of orthodoxy among 
our members at large." As to the Unitarians, he 
specially applied to them the following statement : " In 
religion, properly so called, few Christians, if any (I 
speak, of course, of pious minds) really differ " ; and 
he further declared, "When I look at the reception by 
the Unitarians, both of the Old and New Testament, I 
cannot, for my part, strongly as I dislike their theology, 
deny to those, who acknowledge this basis of divine facts, 
the name of Christians." He was no great friend to 
articles of faith : " Articles of religious communion," he 
declared, "from their reference to the fixed objects of 
our faith, assume an immovable character fatally adverse 
to all theological improvement." 4 Though in favour of 
admitting Dissenters to the University without subscribing 
to the Articles, Dr. Hampden insisted that when they 
entered they should receive religious instruction from 
clergymen of the Church of England. " I see," he wrote, 
"no objection at the same time to the admission of 
Dissenters into the University, because they are Dissenters. 
I should be glad indeed to see them appearing among us, 
as on a neutral ground, on which we may forget war, 
and learn together the arts of peace and charity. If 
persons of different communions are willing to conform 
to our discipline, and receive instruction from us, know 
ing that we are members of the Church of England, and 
sincere teachers of its theological system, where can be 
the real objection in such a case ? " 6 

1 Church Review, August 23, 1900, p. 583. 

2 Hampden s Observations on Religiotis Dissent, 2nd edition, p. 35. 

3 Ibid. p. 20. 4 Ibid. p. 22. B Ibid. p. 34. 



The Tractarian party took the lead in resisting every 
attempt to admit Dissenters into the University of 
Oxford, and with such success that it was not until 
1854 that Subscription to the Thirty-Nine Articles was 
made no longer compulsory as a condition of matri 

Towards the end of 1835, the Rev. Dr. Burton, Regius 
Professor of Divinity at Oxford, died. At that time Lord 
Melbourne was Prime Minister. The Archbishop of 
Canterbury (Dr. Howley), whose sympathies were to a 
considerable extent with the new Oxford Movement, sent 
to his lordship a list of persons whom he conceived to be 
best qualified to succeed Dr. Burton. Eight names were 
mentioned by his Grace, the first being Dr. Pusey ; the 
fourth, the Rev. J. H. Newman; and the fifth, the Rev. 
John Keble. Lord Melbourne consulted Archbishop 
Whately as to the merits of these gentlemen. " It will be 
observed," writes Canon Liddon, " that each of the three 
leaders of the Movement, as they subsequently became, 
was named by the Archbishop for the vacant Chair of 
Divinity. What might not have been the result on the 
future of the English Church had any one of them been 
chosen ! " l Whatever may be said against the gentleman 
who succeeded Dr. Burton, there can be no doubt that 
his appointment was a serious blow to the hopes of the 
sacerdotalists. A rumour of Dr. Hampden s appointment 
reached Oxford on February 8, 1836. No time was lost 
in getting up an agitation against it. That very evening 
Pusey brought his friends together at a dinner party, at 
which the case was fully discussed. There was still a 
hope that an agitation would prevent the dreaded appoint 
ment being made. Two days later another meeting was 
held in Corpus Common Room, at which a petition to the 
King was agreed to, and by the next evening it was sent 
off to the Archbishop of Canterbury for presentation to 
his Majesty, signed by seventy-three resident Masters. It 
seems to have produced a considerable effect upon the 
King, who at once communicated with Lord Melbourne. 

1 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. i. p. 370. 


The Prime Minister, however, remained firm, and on 
February i5th, wrote to William IV.: 

"To what do the charges against Dr. Hampden amount? 
That Dr. Hampden is known to have expressed himself in printed 
publications in such a manner as to produce on the minds of many 
an impression that he maintains doctrines and principles funda 
mentally opposed to the integrity of the Christian faith. Is this 
sufficient ? Is his faith to be denied on such grounds as these 
an impression on the minds of many, without even stating whether 
in the opinion of those who signed the paper the impression is just? 
There are innumerable impressions upon the minds of many, but 
who ever considered such impressions as any proof against the 
person whom they affected ? " 1 

Archbishop Whately lost no time in informing the 
Prime Minister what was, in his opinion, the real secret 
of the opposition to Hampden s appointment. " Hamp 
den/ he wrote, " is not a Tory. And he was for the 
relaxation of the subscription to the Articles at Matri 
culation. Hence it is that men now bring a charge of 
heresy against him which, if they had been sincere 
and honest, they would have brought before the regular 
tribunal three or four years ago, when he was deliver 
ing before the University of Oxford and printing at the 
University Press the sermons which they charge with 
Socinianism." 2 

No stone was left unturned to prevent the appoint 
ment. Pusey hoped that he could reach the heart or 
move the will of Lord Melbourne, and therefore he lost 
no time in writing to him what Newman has termed 
" one of his most earnest, weightiest, crushing letters " ; 
but all in vain, for Newman adds that Lord Melbourne 
"answered him cleverly and sharply, and did not conceal 
the great antipathy he felt in consequence towards Pusey." 3 
The answer is printed in full in Lord Melbourne s Papers. 
It was dated February 24, and contains a hint that Pusey 

1 Lord Melbourne s Papers, p. 499. 

2 Ibid. p. 501. 

3 Newman s Letters^ vol. ii. p. 158. 


would do well to clean out his own stables before he 
attempted to clean those of other persons : 

" Your principle," he wrote, " would make the opinions of the 
present Professors the standard of every future appointment. Before 
persons are chosen on account of the consonance of their tenets 
with those of the individuals who at present fill the theological chairs, 
you must admit that we must a little consider what are the tenets of 
those gentlemen ; and you are very well aware that great alarm has 
been excited in the minds of many whose authority I respect by 
certain tenets, which have, I believe, been published anonymously, 
but with which you are supposed to have had some connection, and 
which are represented to me to be of a novel character and incon 
sistent with the hitherto received doctrines of the Church of 
England. I have not seen the Tracts I refer to, and I should be 
glad to obtain them ; I only speak from what I hear. I therefore 
mean to pronounce no opinion upon them." 1 

Meanwhile the Committee for resisting Dr. Hampden 
continued its sittings in Corpus Christi College. They 
brought before the Heads of Houses a petition asking 
them to bring before Convocation a censure of the 
alleged errors of Dr. Hampden. Th^t gentleman, 
however, heard of the proposal in time, went to 
the special meeting of the Heads of Houses, and de 
feated, for the time being, the plot against himself. Writing 
to his friend, Archbishop Whately, on February iyth, 
he tells him what occurred. " At a special meeting " 
of the Board of Heads of Houses, he wrote, " on Thursday 
last, it was the subject of deliberation whether any step 
should be taken by the Board in consequence of the 
rumour that it was the intention of Ministers to place me 
in the Divinity Chair. Numbers were canvassed before 
hand in order to get a majority for the hostile measure 
designed, and they tried, out of mock kindness, to prevent 
my attendance. I did attend, however, to confront their 
folly and intolerance, and with the kind and skilful support 
of the Provost of Oriel succeeded in disappointing their 
attempt." 2 

Mr. Henry George Liddell, afterwards well known as 

1 Lord Melbourne s Papers, p. 504. 

2 Memorials of B is hop Hampden, p. 54. 


Dean of Christ Church, Oxford, was in Oxford at the time 
of the Hampden controversy, and wrote an interesting 
description of the meeting of the Heads of Houses, at 
which Dr. Hampden was present : 

"On Wednesday," wrote Mr. Liddell, "the Heads of Houses, 
roused by the energy of the Movement party, called a meeting. To 
the horror and surprise of the Doctors, the Principal of St. Mary 
Hall (Dr. Hampden) himself appeared. Strange, said the Dean 
of Christ Church, very strange that you should be here, Mr. 
Principal : we have met to talk of you. Do you mean to stay ? 
I do, was the reply. And to vote? interposed Shuttleworth 
(Warden of New College). I have not made up my mind, said 
Hampden. A very angry discussion followed, after which certain 
propositions (I know not what) were put to the vote. On the first 
two Hampden was left in a minority, himself taking no part. On 
the third the division was equal, whereupon Dr. Hampden inter 
posed, and by his vote turned the decision of the august body in his 
own favour." l 

Newman was quick in perceiving that attacks like these 
needed supplementing by material of a more formidable 
kind. He therefore at once set to work to write a pamphlet 
containing extracts from Hampden s published works, add 
ing to them such comments as he thought necessary. It 
was published on February I3th, only five days after 
the rumour of the appointment had reached Oxford. He 
had to sit up all through one night writing, so as to get it 
out as quickly as possible. It bore the title of Elucidations 
of Dr. Hampden B Theological Statements, and formed a pamph 
let of forty-seven pages. It was certainly the most influential 
document ever produced against Dr. Hampden ; and yet, 
by friends and foes alike, it was censured for unfairness. 
Mr. Arthur Penrhyn Stanley, subsequently known as 
Dean Stanley, was at that time in residence at Oxford, 
and took the deepest interest in the Hampden controversy. 
He did not approve of the new appointment to the Divinity 
Chair, but when the Elucidations appeared, he attacked the 
pamphlet in the most vigorous style. 

1 Henry George Liddell \ D.D. : A Memoir, p. 33. 


" No one," he remarked, " who has not compared Newman and 
Pusey s 1 extracts with the original writings of Hampden, and who 
has not had experience, in himself or others, of the fearfully erron 
eous impression that those extracts convey, can duly appreciate the 
appearance that must have presented itself to Arnold s mind of 
shameless and wilful fabrication. If they (the extracts) had been 
made by any one else than Newman and Pusey, I should not have 
hesitated to attribute them to wilful dishonesty; as it is, I must 
call it culpable carelessness, blindness, and recklessness, in matters 
of the most vital importance to the Church and nation, and to the 
peace of a good man. They have applied to doctrines what 
Hampden says of phraseology, to the Atonement what he said of 
Penance, to denial of Sacramental Grace, and original sin, and 
regeneration, and Trinitarianism, what he has said in confirmation 
and approval of all these truths. They have, till they were com 
pelled by counter-pamphlets to notice that there were such books, 
kept out of sight his Parochial Sermons and Philosophical Evidences^ 
which contain the very essence of orthodoxy ; they have attacked 
him because he has impugned their own peculiar theory of Church 
authority, and the submission of human reason, and have enlisted 
in their ranks persons who differ as entirely from that theory as does 
Hampden himself; and all this while they themselves hold tenets 
barely compatible with their remaining in the English Church." 2 

Newman s Elucidations had a most powerful effect on 
the public mind. People were entirely guided by the 
pamphlet who had never read a word of Hampden s 
writings in his published books. The Rev. T. Mozley, 
one of the opponents of Hampden, and all his life through 
a friend of the Oxford Movement, frankly tells us that 
when Hampden was condemned by the Oxford Convoca 
tion : 

"The great mass of the multitude that inflicted this penalty were 
very, if not entirely, ignorant of the book which was the corpus delicti. 
They might have seen it on a counter, or on a table ; they might 
have opened it, turned over a leaf or two, and might even have had 
their attention directed to a few passages. The very hurry in which 
the thing was done, and the fact that the book was and is compara- 

1 Dr. Hampden s Past and Present Statements Compared. By Dr. Pusey. 
Oxford : Parker. 1836. 

Life of Dean Stanley , vol. i. p. 163. London. 1893. 



tively rare, forbid the supposition that there could have been much, 
or even an adequate, acquaintance with its contents." l 

One of those who took a leading part in opposing Dr. 
Hampden s appointment was the Rev. Samuel Wilber 
force, who based his opposition on the extracts from his 
Bampton Lectures given in Newman s Elucidations. It was 
not until Hampden s appointment to the Bishopric of 
Hereford, in 1847, that Wilberforce carefully read the 
book for himself, and then he at once changed his opinions 
on the question. How this change of opinion came about 
is told, in an interesting narrative, by Newman s brother, 
Mr. F. W. Newman : 

" My old friend, the late Bonamy Price, well known in recent 
Oxford, had been a Rugby Master, and with Grenfell and the rest 
had voted against disabling Hampden. Happening to be in Oxford 
just after the Bubble burst [i.e. in 1847], he called upon Dr. 
Hawkins, who had been gracious to him in old days ; and inevitably 
the two began mutual congratulation on the event [i.e. Bishop 
Wilberforce s decision to veto the proposed prosecution of Hamp 
den]. Hawkins was delighted and boiling over, and soon poured 
out ample details of what passed between him and the Bishop 
[Samuel Wilberforce]. 

"After the Bishop perceived that his old tutor looked grave on 
the open war against Crown Patronage, and on the rumour that the 
Dean of Hereford would risk a Praemunire, the Bishop said that to 
listen to Keble was not a new or active deed : that in fact he was 
constrained to it [that is, to grant permission to prosecute Hampden] 
by consistency ; for he had voted against Hampden s becoming 
Regius Professor of Divinity, and he could not possibly make light 
of unsoundness concerning such a doctrine as the Trinity. (These 
two points were the fulcra of the talk.) On the former, the 
Provost said, You voted in 1836, true; but then you were a Curate; 
then you were one out of four hundred ; now you are a Lord 
Bishop : then your responsibility was nil; now, you will bring on 
yourself the chief responsibility. An error here may affect all your 
future life. When the Bishop made some remark that for sacred 
truth we must encounter great risk, he so expressed himself that 
Hawkins exclaimed : Bless me ! why, you cannot have read Hamp 
den s lectures ; you can only have read Newman s Elucidations of 

1 Mozley s Reminiscences of the Oxford Movement , vol. i. pp. 366, 367. 


them. The Bishop replied : Well, I must confess I could not for 
a moment distrust Newman. Ah ! my Lord, I do not blame you ; 
four hundred trusted him, and I have no right to say, believe me 
rather than him. But since you have not read Hampden yourself, 
and must now, as Bishop, seem to judge his book, and to oppose his 
appointment by the Crown, I do say, that if you are a wise Bishop 
you will read his book at once. And I will tell you what! We 
ought this evening to sit side by side, and read the book together. 

" The Bishop freely confessed the wisdom of the advice, and 
acted on it. The two sat together, with feet on fender, and read 
the lectures through from end to end. 

" Then the Bishop said, My kind old tutor, you are right. I 
have no right to open my lips against Hampden. 

" What actual words the Bishop next day used to Keble I am 
not sure that I learned from Bonamy, but either from him or from 
some other quarter I heard them to be : I have now read Hampden 
myself, and cannot presume to blame him. " * 

This interview between Bishop Wilberforce and Dr. 
Hawkins took place, as Mr. F. W. Newman informs us, in 
December 1847, and the substantial accuracy of the story 
of what took place is corroborated by a letter of Wilber 
force himself to Hampden, dated December 28, 1847, as 
published in his biography. In this he wrote : 

" Unless I was satisfied that there was matter for a criminal suit, 
I could not think myself justified in sending an accusation against 
you to be tried in the Arches Court. Whether there was such 
matter could be determined by me only after a careful study of the 
works in question, with all your explanations in my mind. 

" Regarding, then, the Observations on Dissent as virtually with 
drawn, I accordingly applied myself to a thorough and impartial exami 
nation of the Bampton Lectures. I have now carefully studied 
them throughout, with the aid of those explanations of their meaning 
which you have furnished to the public since their first publication, 
and now in your private communications. The result of this exami 
nation, I am bound plainly to declare, is my own conviction that 
they do not justly warrant those suspicions of unsoundness to which 
they have given rise, and which, so long as I trusted to selected 
extracts, I myself shared." 2 

1 Contributions Chiefly to the Early History of the late Cardinal Newman. 
By his Brother, F. W. Newman. 1891, pp. 85-88. 

2 Life of Bishop Wilberforce, vol. i. pp. 486, 487. 


Not only was Bishop Wilberforce misled by Newman s 
Elucidations: many Evangelical Churchmen also joined in 
the hue and cry against Hampden ; under the impression 
that he was heretical in his teaching as to the Trinity and 
the Incarnation. But, after all, the question here arises, 
was there sufficient ground for these charges ? As early 
as February 27, 1836, Hampden wrote to the Archbishop 
of Canterbury : " I may be indulged on this occasion 
with saying, that a belief in the great revealed truths of 
the Trinity and the Incarnation has been my stay through 
life ; and I utterly disclaim the imputation of inculcating 
any doctrines at variance with these foundations of Chris 
tian hope." 1 Though not holding heretical views on these 
points himself, Hampden was, apparently, willing to op 
pose the use of strong abuse against those who really were 
heretical. It was true that he held very liberal views as 
to the value of Confessions of Faith and Articles of Reli 
gion ; but, as Bishop Wilberforce cleverly showed in the 
letter just cited, Newman himself, at about the very time 
when Hampden s accused publications had first appeared, 
was himself guilty of a very similar offence. 

" I read in them [Hampden s Bampton Lectures]," wrote Wilber 
force, " a thoughtful and able history of the formation of dogmatic 
terminology, not a studied depreciation of authorised dogmatic lan 
guage, still less any conscious denial of admitted dogmatic truth. 1 
see in them, in fact, so far, little more than what has already been ex 
pressed in the words (never, I believe, considered liable to censure) 
of one of your ablest opponents [Newman] in 1834, who says: If I 
avow my belief that freedom from symbols and Articles is ab 
stractedly the highest state of Church communion and the peculiar 
knowledge of the Primitive Church, it is ... first, because techni 
cality and formality are, in their degree, inevitable results of public 
Confessions of Faith. And again : Her rulers were loth to confess 
that the Church had grown too old to enjoy the free unsuspicious 
teaching with which her childhood was blest, and that her dis 
ciples must for the future calculate and reason before they acted 
(Newman s Arians, pp. 41, 42)." 2 

1 Memorials of Bishop Hampden, p. 55. 

2 Life of Bishop Wilberforce, vol. i. p. 487. 


The fact is that it is now admitted by prominent High 
Churchmen that Hampden was not, strictly speaking, 
heretical at all. That well-known High Churchman, Lord 
Selborne, admits that : " Dr. Hampden, as a Bishop, was 
neither better nor worse than many others ; he did 
nothing to confirm any suspicion of his orthodoxy." ] 
Archdeacon Clark testifies, " after twenty years intimacy " 
with Dr. Hampden, that : " He was as loyal and sound 
a member of the Church of England as any of her sons ; 
as orthodox in his views and teaching on the doctrines of 
the faith as it is held by our Reformed Church, and ex 
pressed in her Articles and formularies, as any who 
belong to the ranks of her ministering clergy ; as clear 
and as sound in his views and teaching on the subject of 
the Church s two Sacraments, nay, much more so than 
many who thought it their duty to attack him." 2 The 
testimony of the late Dean Church will, no doubt, carry 
great weight with many High Churchmen. And this is 
what he says : " Dr. Hampden was in fact unexceptionably, 
even rigidly orthodox in his acceptance of Church doctrine 
and Church Creeds. He had published a volume of 
sermons containing, among other things, an able state 
ment of the Scriptural argument for the doctrine of the 
Trinity, and an equally able defence of the Athanasian 
Creed." 3 

Why, then, it may be asked, was such an ado made 
about the appointment of such a man to the office of 
Regius Professor of Divinity in 1836 ; and, again, to his 
appointment as Bishop of Hereford in 1847? The real 
fact is, I believe, that the outcry against Hampden for 
heresy was but the ostensible and not the real cause of 
the furious opposition of the Tractarian party. They 
simply used this cry for the purpose of blinding the eyes 
of Evangelical Churchmen, and induce them to join in 
the hue and cry against him. The real head and front of 
Dr. Hampden s offence was his Protestantism, and his 

1 Memorials Family and Personal, 1766-1865. By the Earl of Selborne, 
vol. ii. p. 10. 

2 Memorials of Bishop Hampden, p. 259. 

3 The Oxford Movement. By Dean Church, 1st edition, p. 144. 


well-known opposition to the sacerdotal doctrines of the 
rising Tractarian party, whom he thoroughly distrusted. 
The Rev. William Sinclair, who knew him well, tells us 
that (apparently soon after the commencement of the 
Tractarian Movement) : " I well remember seeing the 
Doctor come into his study, flushed with excitement and 
with a little tract in his hand. It was one of the well- 
known Tracts for the Times. His remark upon it was : 
1 These gentlemen, without even knowing it, have passed 
the Rubicon ; they do not see that they are already 
Romanists. " x 

Hampden s Protestantism was seen in his Observations 
on Religious Dissent, in which he placed the Holy Scrip 
tures above every human composition, and avowed him 
self an opponent of the theory that Tradition is of equal 
value with the Bible. He wished to tl guard the depository 
of sacred doctrine, the Scripture itself, against the inroads 
of Tradition, or any human authority " ; and he urged his 
readers "to go to Scripture for every matter of religious 
debate. If the alleged point cannot be proved out of 
Scripture, it is no truth of revelation." 2 In his Bampton 
Lectures Hampden s opposition to the Sacerdotalism 
which had been adopted by the Tractarian leaders, was 
revealed in a most unmistakable manner. He attributed 
the "theory of Sacramental influence," advocated in the 
Scholastic philosophy, not to Holy Scripture, but to " the 
general belief in Magic in the early ages of the Church." 3 

" The relative importance of the Eucharist," said Dr. Hampden, 
"in comparison with the other Sacraments, and, indeed, with the 
whole doctrine and ritual of Christianity, in the system of the 
Church of Rome, may be drawn from this primary notion of 
Sacramental efficiency. It may well be asked, why this sacred rite 
should stand so pre-eminent in the scheme of Christianity. I do 
not say, that it ought not to hold a principal station among the 
observances of a holy life. But it is the doctrinal supremacy given 
to it, to which I refer. View it, as it exists in the Roman Church, 
and it is there found absorbing into it the whole, it may be said, 

1 Memorials of Bishop Hampden y p. 32. 

2 Observations on Religioiis Dissent , 2nd edition, p. 9. 

3 Hampden s Scholastic Philosophy Considered, 1st edition, p. 315. 


of Christian worship. There, the ministers of religion seem to be 
set apart chiefly for this sacred celebration : it is the spiritual power 
of their office the essence of their priesthood. If we ask then, 
why this particular Sacrament should have attained this superiority 
over all other rites of Christianity, we may find an answer in the 
Scholastic theory. Whilst the other Sacraments, recognised by 
that theory, participate of the virtue of Christ s passion, this is the 
passion itself Q{ Christ the whole virtue of His priesthood mystically 
represented and conveyed. ... It was freely admitted that Christ 
was once offered for all on the Cross ; that henceforth He is seated 
at the right hand of the Divine Majesty, to die no more. But the 
sacrifice performed by the priest was still a real offering of Christ; 
as being the appointed channel through which the expiatory virtue 
of the Great Sacrifice descends in vital efflux from the person of the 
Saviour. 1 

" The history of the Sacraments, in the Scholastic system, is, 
God working by the instrumentality of man. The theory is of the 
Divine causation, but the practical power displayed is the sacerdotal ; 
the necessary instrument for the conveyance of Divine grace becom 
ing in effect the principal cause. 

"Surely it requires no research into ecclesiastical history or 
philosophy, to see that so operose a system is utterly repugnant to 
the spirit of Christianity. Contemplate our Saviour at the Last 
Supper, breaking bread, and giving thanks, and distributing to His 
disciples ; and how great is the transition from the institution itself 
to the splendid ceremonial of the Latin Church? Hear Him, or 
His Apostles, exhorting to repentance ; and can we suppose the 
casuistical system, to which the name of Penance has been given, 
to be the true sacrifice of the broken and contrite spirit ? . . . 

"Thanks to the Christian resolution of our Reformers, they 
broke that charm which this mystical number of the Sacraments 
carried with it, and dispelled the theurgic system which it supported. 
We are not, perhaps, sufficiently sensible of the advantages which 
we enjoy through their exertions in this respect exertions which 
cost them so many painful struggles, even to the bitterness of death. 
They have taken our souls out of the hand of man, to let them 
repose in the bosom of our Saviour and our God. We have been 
enabled thus to fulfil the instruction of Scripture, to come boldly 
to the throne of Grace, and ask of Him who gives liberally and 
denies to none. The perplexities and distress of heart, of which we 
have been relieved, none perhaps can now adequately conceive. 

1 Hampden s Scholastic Philosophy Considered, pp. 321, 322. 


We must ask of those who have experienced the false comfort of 
that officious intercession of the Sacramental system of the Latin 
Church. They will tell us that, under that system, they knew not 
the liberty of the Gospel. They were unhappy without resource. 
Their wounds were opened, but there was none to heal." l 

In statements such as these we find, I believe, the 
real cause of the Tractarian attack on Dr. Hampden. 
Latitudinarian views as to Holy Scripture are now very 
common and widespread amongst a certain section of 
the Ritualistic party. Their zeal now, as was that of 
their predecessors in 1836, is mainly directed to build 
ing up that sacerdotal system against which our Re 
formers testified with their blood. Hampden protested 
against the same evil system ; hence the hatred of Pusey, 
Newman, Keble, and others, who made the life of their 
opponent unhappy for many years. In saying this I 
wish to guard myself against being supposed to be a 
friend to Hampden s Latitudinarian views. I have no 
sympathy with them whatever, and I think that Lord 
Melbourne in 1836, and Lord John Russell in 1847, 
would have acted more wisely had they selected some 
one else who valued Christian doctrines more highly than 
did Dr. Hampden. 

We now return to the history of the case. The 
appointment of Hampden as Regius Professor of Divinity 
was published in the London Gazette on February 17, 
1836, and after that it was felt by his opponents that 
there was no chance of upsetting it. But it was pos 
sible to move the University to express its disapproval 
of the appointment. The first attempt in this direction 
proved, as I have already stated, a decided failure owing 
to the firm action of Hampden himself. But the effort 
could be renewed, and it was renewed. At last the 
Heads of Houses decided, though with not a little hesi 
tation, that they would bring before Convocation a new 
statute, providing that Dr. Hampden should not (like his 
predecessors in office) be placed on the Board which 
nominated select preachers before the University ; and 

1 Hampden s Scholastic Philosophy Considered^ pp. 341-343. 


that he should not be consulted when a sermon was 
called in question before the Vice-Chancellor. The Con 
vocation was to meet to decide this important matter 
on March 22nd, and in preparation for it Pusey issued 
a pamphlet entitled : Dr. Hampden s Theological Statements 
and the Thirty-Nine Articles Compared. It contained extracts 
from Hampden s writings. Every effort was made to 
bring up voters from the country, and with the result 
that on the eventful day about 450 members were present. 
But they came up in vain, for no sooner had the Vice- 
Chancellor put the question of the proposed new statute, 
than the Proctors interposed with their veto, which at 
once put an end to the proceedings. The Tractarians 
were, of course, very much vexed, but they certainly had 
subsequently an ample revenge, when, in 1844, a proposal 
to censure Tract XC. was, in the interests of the Tractarians, 
vetoed by the then Proctors, Mr. Church and Mr. Guille- 
mard. The names of the Proctors who vetoed the 
proposed statute against Dr. Hampden should here be 
mentioned. They were the Rev. E. G. Bayly, Fellow of 
Pembroke College ; and the Rev. Henry Reynolds, Fellow 
and Tutor of Jesus College. Though defeated on this 
occasion the opponents of Hampden did not lose hope. 
They knew that new Proctors would soon be appointed. 
This was done on April I3th. In that month appeared 
Dr. Arnold s famous article in the Edinburgh Review, on 
" The Oxford Malignants and Dr. Hampden," which, by 
the strength of its denunciations of the Tractarians fanned 
the flame to fiercer heat than ever. The Convocation met 
again on May 5th : the vetoed statute was again introduced. 
Its adoption was moved by Dr. Cardwell, Principal of St. 
Albans Hall ; and seconded by Dr. Symons, Warden of 
Wadham ; the latter being an opponent of Tractarianism. 
It was carried by 474 votes for, and 94 against, being a 
majority of 380. The statute was in the following terms : 

" Since it is committed by the University to the Regius Professor 
of Sacred Theology that he shall be one of the number of those by 
whom the select preachers are appointed, and, moreover, that his 
advice shall be had if any preacher shall be called in question before 


the Chancellor ; but since he, who is now the Professor, in certain of 
his published works has so treated theological questions, that in this 
behalf the University has no confidence in him ; it is enacted that 
the Regius Professor shall be deprived of the aforesaid functions 
until the pleasure of the University be otherwise, &c." l 

This statute was a sting for Dr. Hampden, but it did 
not lead to his removal from office, and therefore in the 
contest he became the substantial victor. Three eminent 
lawyers were consulted as to its legality. Their decision 
was given in these terms : " We think the statute of 1836 
is illegal, as violating the restrictions imposed by the 
Laudian Code, and as passed by the assumption and 
exercise of a power which has not been conceded to the 
University." 2 There were, even amongst the leading 
opponents of Hampden, some who thought the statute 
illegal. The Rev. Thomas Mozley was one of these. He 
denounced it as an " audacious act," and declared that : 
"Any reasonable person, too, may doubt the validity of 
an act depriving the Regius Professor of Divinity of 
privileges appertaining to the very essence of the office. 
If he is not to have a vote in the selection of University 
preachers, or upon a charge of heresy, where is he ? " 3 

On December 21, 1837, the case of Dr. Hampden 
was debated in the House of Lords, in the course of a 
discussion on University Reform. The Earl of Radnor 
warmly defended the Professor, and said that he had no 
doubt that all the hostility to him arose from his advocat 
ing the admission of Dissenters into the University. Lord 
Melbourne said : (t I certainly do not think that there is 
anything to be condemned in the writings of Dr. Hamp 
den." The Archbishop of Canterbury attacked Dr. Hamp 
den in such a very marked manner that he felt it necessary 
to defend himself in a lengthy letter to his Grace, in which 
he demanded to know what were the actual charges brought 
against him by his accusers, and also that he should not 
be judged by mere clamour and shouting, but by proper 

1 Life of Bishop Wilberforce, vol. i. p. 425. 

2 Memorials of B is hop Hampden, p. 65. 

3 Mozley s Reminiscences of the Oxford Movement, vol. i. p. 364. 


ecclesiastical judges ; and he concluded by a fearless 
exposure of the real motives of his chief opponents. 

" I implore your Grace," he wrote, "effectually to put an end to 
this unnatural warfare. I ask, as I have said, for specific charges, 
if such exist. I ask to be called to account before a legal ecclesias 
tical tribunal, if there be real matter of accusation against me. . . . 
It is also well known, that among the prime movers of the disturb 
ance were the leaders and disciples of a new theological school, 
which is now attracting notice by its extraordinary publications, and 
exciting considerable alarm in the Church. Am I to satisfy this 
party ? Am I to purchase exemption from censure by folding my 
arms, and suffering myself to be led away captive by a band whom I 
regard as making inroads on the constitution of the Church of Eng 
land ? You would not, my Lord, have me to consent to such terms 
of peace. ... If, indeed, the price of quiet is to be a surrender of 
the name and principles of Protestantism if I am to admit the 
authority of Tradition on a parity with Scripture if the profession 
of Justification by Faith only is no longer to be the sign of a stand 
ing Church, but a doctrine of Episcopal Grace and Sacramental 
Justification is to overlay God s free pardon through Christ to sinful 
men if private judgment is to be restrained, not by appeal to 
Scripture and argument, but by intimidation if self-constituted 
associations and the names of men are to rule questions of theology 
if Dissent is to be called sin ; and taking of oaths, piety ; and 
mysticism, religion ; and superstition, faith ; and Antichrist, Christ 
then there is no alternative but that I must be objected against by 
those who hold what, if I read the Gospel aright, are the most serious 
perversions of its truth and its spirit." l 

In 1842 the Heads of Houses at Oxford formed a new 
Theological Board of Examiners, and actually appointed 
Dr. Hampden as its Chairman. This was, of course, prac 
tically a withdrawal of the censure passed upon him in 
1836, and, curiously enough, the appointment did not 
evoke any public opposition ; but when the Heads of 
Houses decided to go further, and, at the next meeting 
of Convocation, to formally remove the statute of 1836, 
the Tractarians took alarm at once, and again set to work 
to whip up their friends to vote against the proposal. 
This time, however, they had to lament the coldness of 

1 Memorials of Bishop Hampden, pp. no, in. 


those Evangelicals who had helped them in 1836. A few 
days before the question came on for decision, Dr. Pusey 
wrote despondingly to Keble : " I fear there is increasing 
ground for anxiety ; the Low Church keeps aloof ; the 
Standard has begun the Anti-Newman cry." 1 Archdeacon 
Samuel Wilberforce, who had voted for the statute of 
1836, was strongly inclined to vote against rescinding it ; 
but he had his doubts on the point, which seem to have 
prevented him from voting either for or against it. " My 
principal doubt/ he said, " is this by an unopposed statute 
Hampden was made Chairman of the new Theological 
Board ; now, how can we refuse him one voice amongst 
five in nominating select preachers on the disqualification 
of heresy, and yet allow him to be Chairman of this 
Theological Board ? It is not so much the absolute con 
tradiction of this, as the look of party which it wears, that 
moves me." 2 On June yth, the proposition of the Heads 
of Houses was discussed in Convocation, and rejected by 
334 to 219, a majority for Hampden s opponents of 115. 
The voting showed unmistakably that the opposition to 
Hampden was considerably less than in 1836, when the 
statute of censure was passed by a majority of 380. " The 
Convocation of the University," in Canon Liddon s opinion, 
" saved its consistency ; but the diminished majority 
showed that recent alarms, and perhaps Dr. Hampden s 
appeals to the popular Protestantism, had not been with 
out effect." 3 

In 1842 a considerable amount of public interest cen 
tred round a case with which Dr. Hampden had to deal 
as Regius Professor of Divinity. The Rev. Richard Gell 
Macmullen, Fellow of Corpus Christi College, was required 
by the statutes of his College to take his B.D. degree, if 
he wished to retain his Fellowship. It appears to have 
been the custom, under such circumstances, for the appli 
cant to defend two theses given to him by the Regius 
Professor of Divinity. Accordingly, Mr. Macmullen 

1 Life of Dr. Pusey , vol. ii. p. 289. 

2 Life of Bishop Wilberforce, vol. i. p. 218. 
8 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. ii. p. 290. 



applied to Dr. Hampden to give him two theses to defend. 
It was very well known to the Professor and in the Uni 
versity that Mr. Macmullen was a Tractarian of a very 
pronounced type. Probably as a test of his soundness in 
the faith, Dr. Hampden gave him the following theses to 
defend : 

" i. The Church of England does not teach, nor can it be proved 
from Scripture that any change takes place in the Elements at 
Consecration in the Lord s Supper." 

"2. It is a mode of expression calculated to give erroneous 
views of Divine Revelation to speak of Scripture and Catholic 
Tradition as joint authorities in the matter of Christian Doctrine." 

Mr. Macmullen refused to defend these theses, and 
demanded, as of right, that he should select his own in 
stead. Dr. Hampden refused to grant the demand, and 
with the result that Mr. Macmullen appealed to the law, 
which ultimately led to his defeat, with costs. Dr. 
Hampden having thus gained the victory, Mr. Macmullen 
gave way, and consented to read his exercises for the B.D. 
degree from the original theses submitted to him about 
two years before. He read them on April 18 and 19, 1844, 
in the Divinity School. 1 They were afterwards published 
in pamphlet form ; 2 but instead of defending the theses, he 
really did his best to upset them by a series of Jesuitical 
arguments. He said : " It will therefore be my object to 
endeavour to establish in the first place, That the Church 
of England does teach or imply that some change takes 
place in the Elements at Consecration " ; and he actually 
declared that "The very order and rite of Consecration 
itself in our Book of Common Prayer is a presumption in 
favour of the view that the Church of England does teach 
that the Sacramental Elements are themselves changed into 
the Body and Blood of Christ." 3 In his exercise on the 
second thesis Mr. Macmullen attacked the Protestant 
doctrine of Private Judgment in vigorous language. 

1 Browne s Annals of the Tractarian Movement, 3rd edition, pp. 570, 571. 

2 Two Exercises for the Degree of B.D. By Richard Cell Macmullen, M.A. 
Oxford: Parker. 1844. 

3 Ibid. pp. 6, 7. 


"The statement of our Church/ he said, "That Holy 
Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation/ does 
not mean that it can possibly be the duty, much less, as is 
often proudly and profanely said, the right of every man to 
go to Scripture to gather out his own system of opinion 
for himself, to receive no doctrine, to believe no truth, but 
what he sees to be declared therein." ] Dr. Hampden 
expressed himself as dissatisfied with the exercises, but, 
as Dean Church expresses it, " Somehow or other, Mr. 
Macmullen at last got his degree." Within about two 
years from doing so he seceded to the Church of Rome. 

Towards the end of 1847, Lord John Russell startled 
the country by nominating Dr. Hampden to the Bishopric 
of Hereford. It was a most injudicious measure, since it 
could not be said that there was no other suitable man for 
the post in the country, whose appointment would not 
have caused such a violent agitation as now arose. The 
opposition was fiercer and more widespread than in 1836. 
Even the Bishops took alarm, and thirteen of them signed 
a united remonstrance to Lord John Russell, which, be 
cause of its importance, I print here entire : 

" MY LORD, We, the undersigned Bishops of the Church of 
England, feel it our duty to represent to your lordship, as head of 
her Majesty s Government, the apprehension and alarm which have 
been excited in the minds of the clergy by the rumoured nomination 
to the See of Hereford of Dr. Hampden, in the soundness of whose 
doctrine the University of Oxford has affirmed, by a solemn decree, 
its want of confidence. 

"We are persuaded that your lordship does not know how deep 
and general a feeling prevails on this subject, and we consider our 
selves to be acting only in the discharge of our bounden duty both 
to the Crown and the Church, when we respectfully but earnestly 
express to your lordship our conviction that, if this appointment be 
completed, there is the greatest danger both of the interruption of the 
peace of the Church, and of the disturbance of that confidence which 
it is most desirable that the clergy and laity of the Church should 
feel in every exercise of the Royal Supremacy, especially as regards 
that very delicate and important particular, the nomination to vacant 

1 Macmullen s Two Exercises for the Degree of B.D., p. 58. 


sees. We have the honour to be, my Lord, with sincere respect, 
your lordship s obedient and faithful servants, &c., &c." 

It was the first time since the Reformation that such a 
protest against an Episcopal appointment had been made 
by so large a number of Bishops, and there were high 
hopes held by some that it would be effectual in preventing 
the consecration of Dr. Hampden. But such hopes were 
doomed to disappointment. On November 26, the Arch 
bishop of Canterbury wrote to the Prime Minister to 
apprise him " of the extent and intensity of the feeling " 
against the appointment ; to whom Lord John Russell 
replied on the following day, attributing the opposition 
mainly to Mr. Newman s disciples, and giving them a well- 
merited censure : 

" I am sorry," he wrote, " to find from your Grace s letter that 
the outcry has been greater than you expected. I must attribute 
it chiefly to that portion of the clergy who share Mr. Newman s 
opinions, but have not had the honesty to follow Mr. Newman in his 
change of profession. 

" I confess I am not surprised that such persons should dread 
to see a man on the Bench who will actively maintain Protestant 
doctrines. So long as a Bishop is silent and winks at their attempts 
to give a Roman Catholic character to the Church of England, they 
are not alarmed ; but when they see a man promoted who has 
learning to detect and energy to denounce their errors, they begin 
to fear that Confessions, and Rosaries, and Articles taken in a non- 
natural sense, and Monkish Legends of Saints, will be discouraged 
and exposed." l 

In reply to the remonstrance of the thirteen Bishops, 
the Prime Minister wrote : 

" I observe that your lordships do not state any want of con 
fidence on your part in the soundness of Dr. Hampden s doctrines. 
Your lordships refer me to a decree of the University of Oxford, 
passed eleven years ago, and founded on lectures delivered fifteen 
years ago. 

"Since the date of that decree, Dr. Hampden has acted as 
Regius Professor of Divinity in the University of Oxford, and many 

1 Life of Lord John Russell. By Spencer Walpole, edition 1891, vol. i. 
p. 495. 


Bishops, as I am told, have required certificates of attendance on 
his lectures before they have proceeded to ordain candidates who 
had received their education at Oxford. He has likewise preached 
sermons, for which he has been honoured with the approbation of 
several prelates of our Church. Several months before I named 
Dr. Hampden to the Queen for the See of Hereford, I signified 
my intention to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and did not receive 
from him any discouragement. 

" In these circumstances, it appears to me that, should I with 
draw my recommendation from Dr. Hampden, which has been 
sanctioned by the Queen, I should virtually assent to the doctrine 
that a decree of the University of Oxford is a perpetual bar of 
exclusion against a clergyman of eminent learning and unimpeach 
able life ; and that, in fact, the supremacy which is now vested in 
the Crown, is to be transferred to a majority of the members of one 
of our Universities. 

" Nor should it be forgotten that many of the most prominent 
among that majority have since joined the communion of the See 
of Rome. 

11 1 deeply regret the feeling which is said to be common among 
the clergy on this subject. But I cannot sacrifice the reputation of 
Dr. Hampden, the rights of the Crown, and what I believe to be 
the true interests of the Church, to a feeling which I believe to be 
founded on misapprehension and fomented by prejudice." 

Meetings of the clergy to protest against the appoint 
ment of Dr. Hampden were organised in various parts 
of the country. At these gatherings many strong protests 
against the agitation were heard. The Venerable Julius 
Charles Hare, Archdeacon of Lewes, was asked to con 
vene a meeting of the clergy of his Archdeaconry to 
protest against the appointment. This request led him, 
for the first time, to make a careful examination of 
Hampden s writings, and with the result that he not only 
refused to call such a meeting, but also published a 
pamphlet on the subject, in which he gave his reasons 
for believing that Hampden was not a teacher of heresy. 
In this pamphlet the Archdeacon stated that on first 
hearing of the appointment he had at once condemned 
it as " an act of folly almost amounting to madness." l 

1 A Letter to the Dean of Chichester on the Agitation Excited by the Appoint 
ment of Dr. Hampden. By Julius Charles Hare, Archdeacon of Lewes, p. 6. 
London: Parker. 1848. 


Of " Dr. Hampden personally/ he added, " I know 
nothing, and ten days ago had never read a word of 
his writings," 1 but that, having now read them, he believed 
that "Clamour on the part of the accusers, Ignorance 
on that of their hearers in which it is to be hoped that 
the accusers themselves have no small share these are 
the powers relied on to bar his way to the Episcopate, 
the two uncouth, unwieldy giants that throw their clubs 
across his path." In 1836 Hampden s opponents 
circulated privately a pamphlet of fifteen pages, without 
any title on the outside. On page 7 commenced a 
section headed, " Propositions Maintained in Dr. Hamp 
den s Works," followed by a classified set of extracts, 
far more unfair than those given by Newman in his 
notorious Elucidations. They were reprinted in 1842, 
and circulated privately for a third time in 1847, with 
no author s name attached. Archdeacon Hare reprinted 
the whole of these extracts, and then tested them by the 
original documents, proving their dishonest character 
thoroughly, and concluding thus : 

" Here at length we may pass out of this valley of death. There 
are still three or four Propositions that I have not noticed ; but they 
seem to be merely stuck in to swell out the list, and, after what has 
already been said, need no examination. Such a collection of 
fraudulent misrepresentations has hardly ever come under my 
notice, though I have had much sad experience in this way ; and 
it has been a painful task to expose them. But, as I have had to 
say on a former occasion, a lying spirit is stalking through our 
Church, and even taking possession of some minds that would other 
wise be among its pillars and noblest ornaments : and this spirit we 
must endeavour to cast out at whatsoever cost. Who the collector 
of this series of Propositions may be, I know not. Most probably 
he will be found among those whose love of truth has sought a 
congenial resting-place in the Romish schism ; and his natural end 
seems to be, unless some higher spirit arrest him, to become a 
Familiar of the Inquisition." 3 

There were but very few of the clergy who took the 
trouble of imitating the excellent example of Archdeacon 

1 Hare s Letter to the Dean of Chichester, p. 61. 

2 Ibid. p. 23. a Ibid. pp. 58, 59. 


Hare and studying Hampden s writings for themselves. 
Almost in every instance they formed their opinions of 
the merits of the case from Newman s Elucidations, and 
that set of " Propositions " which raised the just in 
dignation of Archdeacon Hare. Stanley, who was by 
no means favourably disposed towards Hampden, " was/ 
his biographer states, " especially struck by the injustice 
of condemning a man for writings which his accusers 
had probably not read, and certainly had not studied." 
While the excitement about the Hereford Bishopric case 
was at its height, Stanley wrote : " The Dean of Norwich 
told me to-day that Murray had told him that not one 
copy of Hampden s Bampton Lectures had been sold 
since these disturbances had begun. Not one copy ! 
I exclaimed, perfectly boiling with indignation. What ! 
not one amongst the thousands of the clergy, who are 
petitioning or clamouring against his appointment, has 
had the conscience to buy his book ? I never heard 
anything so disgraceful. " 

It cannot be doubted that a large number of the 
clergy who had no sympathy with Tractarianism, or, as it 
was then termed, Puseyism, took part in the agitation 
against Hampden ; but the real wire-pullers and chief 
organisers of the opposition, from first to last, were the 
Tractarians. On the very day that Hampden s appoint 
ment was announced Pusey wrote to the Rev. B. Harrison, 
suggesting that " his elevation to the Episcopate might be 
hindered at Bow Church," 2 that is, by a formal protest 
at his confirmation. Eight days later, on November 23rd, 
he announced to Archdeacon Churton : " He will be 
opposed at Bow Church, if by no others, by ]. Keble." 3 
Hampden, by virtue of his office as Regius Professor of 
Divinity, was also Rector of Ewelme, in the Diocese of 
Oxford, a living attached officially to the Professorship. 
Here was a further opening for attack on the part of his 
opponents. It was seen that while it would be very 
difficult to prosecute Hampden for heresy as a Professor, it 

1 Life of Dean Stanley, vol. i. p. 349. 

2 Life of Dr. Pusey ^ vol. iii. p. 159. 

3 Ibid. p. 1 60. 


would be comparatively easy to do so, as a Rector. u There 
upon/ says Canon Liddon, " Pusey and Keble set to work 
to draw up articles for the < oppositores in Bow Church, 
and, following the advice of Dr. Addams and Dr. Harding, 
and of Keble s proctor, Mr. Townsend, they endeavoured 
to institute a suit against Hampden in the Ecclesiastical 
Courts. . . . Mr. Townsend visited Oxford in order to 
talk over the matter with Pusey, Marriott, and ]. B. 
Mozley. Mr. Marriott then applied to the Bishop of 
Oxford for Letters of Request, by which the case would 
be transferred to the Court of Arches." 1 The four chief 
workers in the protest at Bow Church, and especially in 
the organising of the proposed prosecution, were Keble, 
Pusey, Marriott, and J. B. Mozley, all leaders of the 
Tractarian party, by whom they were in every respect 
thoroughly trusted. But these gentlemen, though the 
real wire-pullers of the prosecution, do not appear to 
have actually given their names as formal prosecutors, 
and it was not until Dr. Hampden had demanded 
from the Bishop of Oxford the names of his accusers 
that he received them from the Bishop. They were 
the Revs. W. H. Ridley, E. Dean, and H. ]. Young. 2 
Canon Liddon informs us that " Keble characteristically 
made himself responsible for the legal expenses, which 
Badeley estimated at .2000. There is no doubt that 
Pusey did not allow the burden to fall on him alone. 
Keble/ wrote Badeley to Pusey on January 21, 1848, 
has sent me the guaranty for the costs signed by himself 
only ; do you know of any others who would be willing 
to join with him? The object was that < the expenses 
should not fall on those who were put forward as the nominal 
objectors! " 3 It thus appears who the real prosecutors were. 
What the theological opinions of the nominal prosecutors 
were I have no means of knowing. I cannot tell whether 
they were High Churchmen or Evangelicals. 

Bishop Samuel Wilberforce lost no time in dealing 

1 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. iii. p. 161. 

2 Life of Bishop Wilberforce, vol. i. p. 466. 

3 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. iii. p. 161, note. 


with the request of the Tractarian leaders to send the case 
on for trial before the Court of Arches. At first he was 
in favour of the prosecution, and on December i6th he 
actually signed the Letters of Request to the Court of 
Arches, which, however, he subsequently withdrew. But, 
before withdrawing them, he induced the promoters of 
the suit I quote the language of Bishop Wilberforce s 
biographer " to consent to the withdrawal of the < Letters 
if he could induce Dr. Hampden to give satisfactory as 
surances as to some of the points on which the language 
of the Bampton Lectures and the Observations on Religious 
Dissent was most disquieting." * Accordingly the Bishop 
wrote to Hampden, on December iyth, asking him to give 
to the Church " such a distinct avowal on your part of 
sound doctrine, and such a withdrawal of suspected lan 
guage, as may terminate all opposition to your consecra 
tion " ; and adding that he (the Bishop) believed him "to 
hold the true faith." At the same time Dr. Wilberforce 
asked Dr. Hampden certain important questions : 

"I will," he wrote, "take seriatim the truths concerning your 
supposed denial of which articles are now prepared in reference to 
the Court of Arches, and ask you : ist, To avow your unhesitating 
reception of them. They are these : 

" i. That you believe that certain doctrines may be required to 
be believed, as necessary to salvation, on the ground that they may 
be proved by Holy Scripture. 

" 2. That you believe that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, as 
it is taught by the Church, is the expression of that which is from 
all eternity in the Divine nature. 

" 3. That you fully believe that The Son was begotten before 
all worlds, being of one substance with the Father, and that it is 
1 necessary to salvation that a man believe rightly the Incarnation of 
our Lord Jesus Christ. 

"4. That you believe that the offering of Christ upon the Cross 
was not only a means of reconciling us to God, but was also a 
satisfaction for the sins of the whole world. 

"5. That you believe, in the plain sense of the words, all men 
to be by nature born in sin and the children of wrath, and that such 

1 Life of Bishop Wilberforce, vol. i. p. 455. 
* Ibid. p. 455. 


terms may be properly applied to infants before they may have com 
mitted actual sin ; and that original or birth sin is the fault and 
corruption of the nature of every man that naturally is engendered 
of the offspring of Adam. 

" 6. That you believe, in the plain sense of the words, that the 
souls of the faithful, after they are delivered from the burden of the 
flesh, are in joy and felicity. 

" 7. That you believe, in the plain sense of the words, that in 
Baptism we are made members of Christ, and that they who with 
a true penitent heart and lively faith receive the Holy Com 
munion do spiritually eat the flesh of Christ and drink His blood, 
are one with Christ and Christ with them. 

"8. That you admit, as containing true doctrine, the words, 
the mystical union between Christ and His Church. 

" 9. That you admit, as a true and wholesome doctrine, that 
we have no power to do good works without the grace of Christ 
preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with us 
when we have that good will. 

" 10. That you receive as true the words, Pour Thy grace into 
our hearts. 

"IT. That you believe the Sacraments of the Church to be 
effectual signs of grace, by the which God doth work invisibly in 
us, and are means whereby we receive the same inward grace. " 1 

Bishop Wilberforce also asked Dr. Hampden to with 
draw his Bampton Lectures and his Observations on Dissent 
from circulation. To Lord John Russell the Bishop sent 
a copy of his letter to Dr. Hampden. The Prime Minister 
in his reply showed himself far from satisfied with the 
Bishop s action : 

" Dr. Hampden has," wrote Lord John Russell on December 
1 8th, "for eleven years taught divinity as Regius Professor. Can 
didates for Orders were required by the Bishops, with the exception 
of five or six, to bring certificates that they had received from 
Dr. Hampden instruction in theology. The Bishops of Manchester 
and Salisbury, as I am told, sent away candidates who were not pro 
vided with Dr. Hampden s certificates. How is such a man to be 
interrogated upon articles framed, not by the Church, but by one of 
its Bishops, as if he were himself a young student in divinity ? 

"This remark applies to two of the three articles drawn up by 
your lordship, to which I should not otherwise object. But the 

1 Life of Bishop Wilberforce^ vol. i. pp. 456, 457. 


eleventh, asking Dr. Hampden to withdraw his Bampton Lectures 
and his Principles of Dissent, appears to me to require that Dr. Hamp 
den should degrade himself in the eyes of all men for the sake of a 
mitre. He has repeatedly declared that in these works he has not 
intended to profess any doctrine at variance with the doctrines of 
the Church. Dr. Arnold could see nothing unsound in them, nor 
can the Bishop of Durham, or the Bishop of Chester, or the Bishop 
of Norwich, or the Bishop of Llandaff. Indeed I believe that Dr. 
Pusey himself, who must be considered as the leader and the oracle 
of Dr. Hampden s opponents, has written that he does not consider 
the opinions of Dr. Hampden unsound, but that they lead to un- 
soundness, and are, therefore, dangerous in a teacher of divinity." x 

On the same day that Lord John Russell wrote thus 
to the Bishop of Oxford, Dr. Hampden wrote also to that 
prelate, in reply to his queries. He might easily have 
assumed the dignity of his position as a reason for de 
clining to answer the questions put to him. He might 
reasonably have refused to be interrogated, to quote Lord 
Russell s words, " as if he were himself a young student 
of divinity." But instead of assuming this position he 
assumed one which was greatly to his credit. 

"If," wrote Dr. Hampden to the Bishop, "the queries which this 
letter contains had come from any other source, or been addressed 
to me under other circumstances, I think I should have been justi 
fied in considering that an insult was not only conveyed but intended 
to be conveyed to me, by having such elementary tests applied to 
one who holds the position I do. But, my Lord, I am sure your 
intention is to be a messenger and instrument of peace ; and I know 
too well what even Christian warfare is, not to meet such a proceed 
ing on your part in the like kindly spirit. On this ground, therefore, 
and in perfect respect to you as the Bishop of the diocese, and for your 
personal satisfaction, I unhesitatingly reply in the affirmative. I say 
Yes to all your queries on my belief in that sense in which they 
are the plain natural sense of the statements of our Articles and 
Formularies. I need not discuss them, for I have repeatedly 
affirmed every position in them drawn from those authoritative 
sources, commencing with my Catechism as a child, in the daily use 
of the Liturgy, in my subscription and adherence to the Articles, 
and in the constant use of my ministerial office. I have affirmed 

1 Life of Bishop Wilberforce, vol. i. p. 459, 


them in public and in private, in the pulpit, in my works, from the 
Chair of Divinity, and in the other offices I have held in the 
University, and in the very works which have attracted so much 
notice, and have been subjected to so much misrepresentation." l 

Such a letter as this ought to have satisfied Dr. 
Hampden s prosecutors. It was sufficient to prove to any 
candid mind that, as Bishop of Hereford; there was no 
reason to fear that he would teach heretical doctrine. 
What had happened would have been quite enough to 
make him careful as to the language he employed in 
teaching Christian doctrine, however careless he might 
have been in this respect in the past. But his prose 
cutors were not satisfied. Nothing would suffice for them 
but a public apology, and a withdrawal of his Bampton 
Lectures. His Observations on Dissent had not been issued 
with Dr. Hampden s consent since the second edition was 
sold out some years previously. When Bishop Wilber- 
force learnt that the pamphlet was no longer in circulation 
with the consent of Dr. Hampden, and after he had 
received a letter from the Archbishop of Canterbury, 
stating that in his opinion the Letters of Request should 
be withdrawn, he felt that it was no longer desirable that 
the prosecution should proceed, and, therefore, he with 
drew the Letters of Request accordingly. The Tract- 
arians, of course, at once directed their fury against the 
unfortunate Bishop of Oxford, who had now given them 
mortal offence. Dr. Pusey declared that the Bishop s 
conduct " was far more injurious to the Church than Dr. 
Hampden s appointment. An act of tyranny hurts not 
the Church ; the betrayal by her own guardians does ; " 
and he went on to express the opinion that his lordship s 
withdrawal of the Letters of Request was " the greatest 
blow the Church has had since Newman s secession." 2 At 
that time the Tractarians were bitterly opposed to the exer 
cise of the Episcopal Veto on the prosecutions which they 
had initiated. When the High Church Bishop of Exeter 
(Dr. Phillpotts) heard that Bishop Wilberforce had vetoed 

1 Life of Bishop Wilberforce^ vol. i. pp. 461, 462. 

2 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. iii. pp. 162, 163. 


the prosecution of Hampden he was greatly annoyed and 
disappointed. He thought the Church Discipline Act of 
1840 did not permit of the exercise of the Episcopal 
Veto, which he considered " a very invidious " and 
" dangerous " power to be placed in the hands of the 

"I may," he wrote the Bishop of Oxford, "be mistaken in my 
construction of the Statute. It may give you the power to do what 
you have done to determine absolutely, of your own mere will or 
on your own mere opinion, that the suit shall not be prosecuted. If 
this be the proper construction of the Statute, I shall deeply lament if, 
for it will give to us Bishops a much greater amount of power, and, in 
consequence, of responsibility, than I think safe for ourselves, much 
less wise in the law to entrust to any men. 

" Still, even so, I should myself deem it at once my wisdom and 
my duty to forbear from acting on so very invidious and dangerous 
a power in any case whatever which I can contemplate, certainly in 
any way which should have the slightest semblance of affinity to the 
one in which you have exercised it." x 

One can almost afford to smile at the anxiety of the 
early Tractarians to prosecute their opponents. Had they 
been successful in their efforts we should never have heard 
any Ritualistic complaints against the existing Ecclesias 
tical Courts. It was only when they discovered that the 
Courts were against them that they turned against the 
Courts. When Hampden s opponents found the doors of 
the Court of Arches closed against them by the Bishop of 
Oxford, they determined to oppose him by publicly pro 
testing in Hereford Cathedral against his election by the 
Dean and Chapter. On the receipt of the Conge cCelire 
addressed to the Dean and Chapter of Hereford, the Dean 
of Hereford addressed a Memorial to the Queen, dated 
December 17, 1847, containing the following petition: 
"We most humbly pray your Majesty to name and 
recommend some other person whom your Majesty shall 
think meet to be elected by us for our Bishop, or that 
your Majesty will graciously relieve us from the necessity of 
proceeding to the election till you shall have been pleased 

1 Life, of Bishop Wilberforce, vol. i. p. 490. 


to submit Dr. Renn Dickson Hampden s published writings 
(so judged as aforesaid by the Convocation of the Univer 
sity of Oxford), to the judgment either of the two Houses 
of Convocation of Clergy of the Province of Canterbury, 
which is now sitting, or of the Provincial Council of 
Bishops of the same Province, assisted by such divines 
as your Majesty or the said Provincial Council shall be 
pleased to call, or of some other competent tribunal which 
your Majesty shall be graciously pleased to appoint." ] 
Unfortunately for the Dean, his Memorial received a very 
chilling reception. He received from Sir G. Grey a reply, 
stating that it had been laid before the Queen, but that 
" Her Majesty has not been pleased to issue any commands 
thereupon." Nothing daunted, the militant Dean once 
more addressed a letter of protest to Lord John Russell, 
dated December 22nd, and concluding with the announce 
ment : " I say, my Lord, having fully counted the cost, 
having weighed the sense of bounden duty in the one 
scale against the consequences in the other, I have come 
to the deliberate resolve, that on Tuesday next no earthly 
consideration shall induce me to give my vote in the 
Chapter of Hereford Cathedral for Dr. Hampden s eleva 
tion to the See of Hereford." 2 The Dean s letter to the 
Prime Minister was in vain. His lordship coldly replied 
as follows : " SIR, I have had the honour to receive 
your letter of the 2 2nd inst., in which you intimate to 
me your intention of violating the law. I have, &c., 

At length the day of Election arrived. People were 
everywhere full of curiosity to know what the Dean and 
Chapter of Hereford would do. The Chapter assembled 
in the Cathedral Library on Tuesday, December 28th. 
Seventeen members (including the Dean, who presided) 
were present. After the Conge d e lire and the Queen s 
Letter Missive had been read, the Chapter proceeded to 
the election. Fifteen voted for Dr. Hampden, and two 
against, viz., Canon Huntingford and the Dean. These 

1 The full text of the Memorial was published in the English Churchman, 
Dec. 23, 1847, pp. 920, 921. 

2 Ibid. Dec. 30, 1847, p. 934. 


gentlemen each read a separate protest, explaining their 
reasons for the course they took. Canon Huntingford 
said : " With the utmost respect for the Royal Preroga 
tive, and with a full conviction that it is for the peace and 
safety of the Church, that the Crown should nominate to 
vacant Sees, yet in this particular instance I feel obliged 
to defer complying with the recommendation which has 
been sent down to us, until a competent tribunal shall 
have pronounced to have been well founded or not the 
sentiments expressed by so many Bishops of our Church, 
and by so many members of one of our Universities." 1 
The Dean of Hereford gave similar reasons for his vote, 
and concluded with this statement: "I, therefore, John 
Merewether, D.D., Dean of the Cathedral Church of Here 
ford, am dissentient. I cannot vote for Dr. Renn Dickson 
Hampden as a Bishop and Pastor of the Cathedral Church 
where I am Dean. And I further protest." 2 It must, I 
think, be admitted that both the Dean and Canon Hunt 
ingford deserved credit for the courage which led them 
thus to act according to the dictates of their consciences, 
however mistaken their judgments may have been. But 
all their efforts were in vain. Dr. Hampden was declared 
elected as Bishop of Hereford. Certificates of his election 
were at once forwarded to the Queen, the Archbishop of 
Canterbury, and to the Bishop Elect, in which nothing 
whatever was said about the alleged unsound teaching of 
the divine elected ; but the Dean succeeded in having a 
formal protest of his own appended to each of the three 
certificates. In this protest the Dean did not object to 
Dr. Hampden on account of his supposed heresy, but 
because " certain persons have voted, who (I have reason 
to believe, being merely Honorary Prebendaries, and not 
having conformed to the provisions of the statutes of this 
Church, which I have sworn to observe), are not qualified 
to vote in Chapter, and also because the majority so 
constituted has not, according to the said statutes, the 

1 The Case of Dr. Hampden. By Richard Jebb, Barrister-at-Law, p. 6. 
London : 1849. 

2 Ibid.?, ii. 


Dean and three Residentiaries at the least voting therein." ] 
No official notice, so far as I am able to ascertain, appears 
to have been taken of this protest. 

And now, all efforts at preventing the Election of Dr. 
Hampden having utterly failed, the efforts of his enemies 
were next directed to preparation for opposition to his 
forthcoming Confirmation in Bow Church. Pusey and 
Keble were particularly zealous in this direction. " Pusey 
and Keble," writes Canon Liddon, " were busily engaged 
in preparing theological matter for the use of Counsel at 
Bow Church. I found things/ writes Pusey to Marriott, 
on January 2, 1848, in Godliman Street, in most utter 
confusion. Our articles of indictment just in the state in 
which they were sent in. The heads of K. s [Keble s] 
articles (that is, his preamble) not fitted in into the sequel 
(the allegations). I spent five and a half hours there on 
Friday, and put them to rights ; at least ready to be copied 
out. " The Confirmation of the Election of Dr. Hampden 
took place in Bow Church on Tuesday, January n, 1848. 
No fewer than ten legal gentlemen appeared in the 
Church, three representing the Dean and Chapter of 
Hereford, one for Dr. Hampden, and six for the opposers 
of the Confirmation. When opposers were publicly 
called by the Apparitor-General to the Archbishop of 
Canterbury, several of the learned Counsel rose one 
after the other and asked to be heard ; but the Court 
refused to hear their objections, after allowing them at 
some length to argue in favour of being heard. The 
arguments used on this occasion are printed verbatim in 
The Case of Dr. Hampden, edited by Mr. Richard Jebb, 
Barrister-at-Law, pp. 30-50. Dr. Hampden s accusers 
were again unsuccessful, and his Confirmation was there 
fore completed. An interesting account of the scene is 
given by Archdeacon Clark in his " Recollections," printed 
in the Memorials of Bishop Hampden. 

"I was present," he writes, "at Bow Church when his [Dr. 
Hampden s] Confirmation as Bishop was opposed by the Dean of 

1 Jebb s The Case of Dr. Hampden, p. 13. 

2 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. iii. p. 163. 


Hereford. The ceremony took place on a week day, at a busy hour, 
when Cheapside is usually most densely crowded. On this occasion, 
as we approached the Church, the stream of human beings usually 
in motion was arrested, Cheapside was in a state of congestion, and 
it was with difficulty that the Bishop s carriage reached the Church. 
It was evident that all other business was suspended, and that the 
one object of interest to the excited crowd was the new Bishop. There 
could be no doubt that the popular feeling was on his side. Again 
and again, as he passed to and from the Church, he was loudly 
cheered, not a single sound of dissent or disapproval being heard. 
On entering the Church the scene was still more striking and 
memorable. The whole area of the Church and the galleries were 
crowded, spectators were standing on the seats and backs of pews. . . . 
When at length the ceremony was over, and we succeeded in forcing 
our way through the vestry and the crowded porch into the street, 
the enthusiasm of the people could not be restrained. It was really 
a service of danger for those who accompanied the Bishop. Every 
body pressed forward to see and congratulate him ; and if we had 
not turned ourselves into his body-guard, and almost covered him 
as he passed through the crowd, he was in some danger of being 
crushed by his admirers. When we were seated in the carriage, 
Cheapside rang again with repeated cheers, which followed us until 
we were fairly out of sight. Some of the crowd pursued the carriage 
for some distance through St. Paul s Churchyard, to see and con 
gratulate the persecuted Bishop." 1 

But the Bishop-Elect of Hereford was not yet out of 
his troubles. Only three days later, viz. on January i4th, 
Sir Fitzroy Kelly applied to the Court of Queen s Bench 
for a rule to show cause why a mandamus should not issue 
directed to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and his Vicar- 
General, commanding them, or one of them, to hold a 
Court at which they should permit and admit to appear 
in due form of law, the Rev. R. W. Huntley, Vicar of 
Alderbury ; the Rev. John Jebb, Rector of Peterstow ; 
and the Rev. W. F. Powell, Vicar of Cirencester, "to 
oppose the said Confirmation of the said Election of the 
said Dr. Renn Dickson Hampden, and to hear and 
determine upon such opposition, and upon the articles, 
matters, and proof thereof." The application was really 

1 Memorials of Bishop Hampden, pp. 251-253. 

2 The Case of Dr. Hampden, p. 92. 


made for the purpose of setting aside the decision of the 
Vicar-General at Bow Church refusing to hear objectors. 
The Court granted the Rule, and on January 24th the 
case came on for hearing before Lord Denman, and 
Justices Coleridge, Pattison, and Erie. After hearing 
Counsel on both sides the Court reserved judgment until 
February ist, when Mr. Justice Coleridge and Mr. Justice 
Pattison gave judgment in favour of granting the Rule, 
while Lord Denman and Mr. Justice Erie gave judgment 
against the Rule. The result was that, the Court being 
equally divided, the application of Dr. Hampden s oppo 
nents fell to the ground. 

On the 4th of February the three clergymen whose 
application to the Court of Queen s Bench fell through, 
petitioned the Archbishop of Canterbury (Dr. Howley) as 
their " remaining and best resource," to grant " a compe 
tent ecclesiastical inquiry into our objections, and into 
the whole of the works we have mentioned," before the 
consecration of Dr. Hampden. 1 But, unfortunately for 
their hopes, the Archbishop was then on his death-bed, 
and died only seven days later. His successor (Dr. 
Sumner) sent a formal acknowledgment of the receipt 
of the Memorial, but he did not think it wise to grant 
its request. And so, on March 26, 1848, Dr. Hampden 
was at last consecrated in the Chapel of Lambeth Palace 
as Bishop of Hereford. The consecrating prelate was 
the Archbishop of Canterbury (Dr. Sumner), who was 
assisted by the Bishop of Llandaff (Dr. Copleston), the 
Bishop of Norwich (Dr. Stanley), and the Bishop of 
Worcester (Dr. Pepys). 

It must not be supposed that throughout this heated 
controversy Dr. Hampden was without friends and sup 
porters. On the contrary, he received the sympathy and 
help of many influential personages in Church and State. 
The Prime" Minister was throughout one of his firmest 
friends, and when the news of his election reached Woburn 
Abbey, Lord John Russell s residence, it created quite an 

1 The Case of Dr. Hampden^ p. 500. 


excitement. Baron Bunsen was on a visit there at the 
time, and in a letter to his wife described what took place 
on the reception of the news : 

"Yesterday," he wrote, "was a day of satisfaction for the house 
of Russell, the news having arrived of Dr. Hampden s election. 
Lord John had been much vexed in the latter days by the unreason 
ableness of the people he had to deal with but yesterday at three 
o clock, when we were collected in expectation, and talking against 
time, in came little Johnny [Viscount Amberley], escorted by his 
aunt-like sister, and stationed himself at the entrance of the library, 
distinctly proclaiming, like a herald, Dr. Hampden, a Bishop! 
We cheered him, and some one asked him whether he liked Dr. 

H . I don t mind (was his answer) for I don t know him. His 

father came in afterwards, radiant with satisfaction. After dinner, 
I suggested as a toast, c The Chapter of Hereford, adding sotto 
voce to Lord John, and he who has managed them. Milnes and 
Stafford gave * The Dean/ in opposition, and we were just divided, 
like the Chapter, two against fifteen. Lord John took all very 
kindly." 1 

Dr. Hampden received many addresses of sympathy 
from both clergy and laity. His fellow-citizens in Oxford 
presented him with a public address, expressing confidence 
in him as one who had set forth and enforced " the great 
cardinal doctrines of a religion based on the Word of 
God." He received also a general address from friends 
throughout the country, chiefly signed by the clergy, but 
including the names of members of both Houses of Par 
liament ; and other addresses from members of Oxford 
Convocation, and the Chapters of York and Gloucester. 
His daughter states that, in connection with these addresses, 
" the point to which he attached the greatest importance 
was, that this support was offered to him on account of 
his teaching and defence of the principles of the Church 
of England as established by the Reformation." 2 Of 
these addresses perhaps the most important and signi 
ficant was that which was signed by no fewer than 

1 Memoirs of Baron Bunsen, vol. ii. p. 155. 

2 Memorials of Bishop Hampden^ p. 153. 


fifteen out of the twenty-two Heads of Houses. It was 
as follows : 


" We, the undersigned Heads of Houses in the University of 
Oxford, have seen with great concern the report of proceedings in 
various parts of the country upon your proposed appointment to the 
See of Hereford, tending to injure your reputation, impede your 
future usefulness, and even create a general distrust of the sound 
ness of your faith in our Blessed Lord. Under such circumstances, 
although we only declare the sentiments which many of us have 
expressed before, and particularly upon the enactment in 1842 of 
the new statute concerning theological instruction, we desire to 
assure you, that having for years enjoyed ample opportunities of 
learning the tenor of your public teaching, and hearing your dis 
courses from the pulpit of the University, we are not only satisfied 
that your religious belief is sound, but we look forward with con 
fidence to your endeavours to preach the Gospel of Christ in its 

"B. P. Symons, Warden of Wadham, and Vice-Chancellor. 

Edward Hawkins, Provost of Oriel 

James Ingram, President of Trinity. 

Philip Wynter, President of St. John s. 

John Radford, Rector of Lincoln. 

Henry Foulkes, Principal of Jesus College. 

Thomas Gaisford, Dean of Christ Church. 

John David Macbride, Principal of Magdalene Hall. 

David Williams, Warden of New College. 

Frederick Charles Plumptre, Master of University College. 

Henry Wellesley, Principal of New Inn Hall. 

R. Bullock Marsham, Warden of Merton. 

William Thompson, Principal of St. Edmund Hall. 

James Norris, President of Christ Church College. 

Francis Jeune, Master of Pembroke." l 

The history of the Hampden Case throws a great deal 
of light on the early tactics of the Tractarian party. In 
reality, as I have already said, I believe, Dr. Hampden s 
latitudinarian views were only the ostensible cause of 
the furious attacks made upon him. The real cause of 

1 English Churchman, January 6, 1848, p. 6. 


offence was his outspoken Protestantism, though it must 
be admitted that the early Tractarians were sincerely 
opposed to his latitudinarian tendencies. But they could 
not bear that the " Traditions " of the Church, her decrees 
and Creeds, should be thought of less importance than the 
written Word of God. Dr. Hampden s vigorous attacks 
upon the sacerdotal teaching, ever so dear to the hearts 
of the enemies of the Gospel and the friends of priestcraft, 
made the Tractarians almost wild with rage. But, as far 
as possible, they carefully concealed from the public gaze 
the real cause of offence, and in this way they gained the 
support of many Evangelicals, who were at least quite as 
zealous for the Orthodox Faith, as any of the Tractarians. 
And is it not a remarkable fact that Rationalistic views as 
to the inspiration and truth of the Bible, far more objec 
tionable than were ever taught by Dr. Hampden, are 
now openly avowed by many leading members of the 
Ritualistic party, the successors of the Tractarians ? 
The Hampden Crusade was conducted by the real wire 
pullers as a part of a deeply laid scheme to banish Ultra- 
Protestantism, as held by the Reformers in the sixteenth 
century, out of the Church of England. All opponents 
were to be removed out of the way, and Dr. Hampden, as 
Regius Professor, and afterwards as a Bishop, was very 
much in the way of the success of their schemes. They 
tried to get rid of him, and failed. And in their prosecu 
tion of their Crusade they did not despise the strong arm 
of the law. The existing Courts of Law, now so much 
reviled and abused, were then thought good enough to 
decide the law as to the highest Christian doctrines. The 
chief leaders of the party, Dr. Pusey and Keble, were, as 
we have seen, the most zealous, and the leading workers 
in the proposed prosecution of Dr. Hampden, thirty 
years before the Church Association came into existence. 
Ecclesiastical prosecutions were not abused then by the 
leaders of the Oxford Movement. On the contrary, they 
were in high favour, and if they had only succeeded in 
their hands all our present troubles about Ecclesiastical 
Courts would have been unknown. 


Dr. Pusey s early Protestantism Extracts from his Historical Enquiry 
His Theological Society" The young Monks "The Library of 
the Fathers Mr. Bickersteth approves of the Library Lord Sel- 
borne on the Fathers Richard Hurrell Froude His influence on 
Newman His admiration of Rome, and dislike of the Reformation 
Newman s early love of Rome His mind " essentially Jesuitical " 
Froude s Remains Extracts from the Remains, showing his 
Romanising principles Professor Faussett s University sermon 
against the Tractarians The Rev. Peter Maurice s Popery in Oxford 
Dr. Pusey insults Mr. Maurice Newman s reply to Faussett 
Dr. Hook s Call to Union Bishop of Oxford s Visitation Charge 
The Oxford Martyrs Memorial Pusey thinks it "unkind to the 
Church of Rome" Keble thinks Cranmer a Heretic " Cranmer 
burnt well " Tractarian opposition to the Memorial The inscrip 
tion on the Oxford Martyrs Memorial. 

THE leaders of the Oxford Movement were wise in their 
day and generation. They realised the vast importance 
of influencing those who were destined to be the teachers 
and leaders of the rising generation. At first, the move 
ment was mainly confined to the educated classes, the 
poor were only thought of afterwards. I do not say they 
were wise in making, even for a time, the poor a secondary 
consideration ; but they certainly realised from the com 
mencement, in a way the Evangelicals never have done 
yet (to anything like a sufficient extent), that if the laity 
are to be instructed and influenced, their clergy must first 
of all have been educated sufficiently in their faith. 

The formation by Dr. Pusey of a Theological Society, 
in 1835, greatly assisted the Tractarians in this direction. 
Dr. Pusey was much slower in imbibing Roman doctrine 
than Newman. As recently as 1828 he had published 
the first part of An Historical Enquiry into the Rationalist 
Character of the Theology of Germany, the second part of 
which appeared in 1830, containing many opinions which 


in after life he ceased to hold. Its strong praise of Martin 
Luther, and its declaration that Scripture is its own inter 
preter, instead of being interpreted by the Church, show 
that at that early period Pusey was in full sympathy with 
much that is held dear by Lutheran Protestants. 

"The fruitless attempts," wrote Pusey, "to satisfy an uneasy and 
active conscience by the meritorious performances of a Romish Con 
vent had opened his [Luther s] eyes to the right understanding of 
Scripture, in whose doctrines alone it could find rest ; and the clear 
and discerning faith which this correspondence of Scripture with his 
own experience strengthened in him, gave him that intuitive insight 
into the nature of Christianity, which enabled him for the most part 
unfailingly to discriminate between essentials and non-essentials, and 
raised him not only above the assumed authority of the Church and 
above the might of Tradition, but above the influence of hereditary 
scholastic opinions, the power of prejudices, and the dominion of 
the letter. Unfortunately, however, the further expansion of his 
views necessarily yielded to the then yet more important practical 
employments, to which this Great Apostle of Evangelical Truth dedi 
cated the most of his exertions." 1 

The following statement of Pusey as to the right 
method of interpreting the Bible, would certainly not be 
accepted by his followers of the present day : 

"The Reformers, in consistency with their great tenet, that 
Scripture is the only authoritative source of Christian knowledge, 
had laid the study of the sacred volume as the foundation of all 
Theological science. In the pursuance of this principle they had 
established as the rule of interpretation one which, when correctly 
developed, contains all the elements of right exposition, which have 
since been gradually vindicated by the combination of several partial 
efforts. Their, or rather the Biblical, rule that Scripture is its own 
interpreter, includes in itself the religious, historical, grammatical 
elements which were imperfectly, because separately, brought forward 
by Spener, Semler, and Ernesti. For it is obvious that if Scripture 
is to be understood from itself, those only can rightly and fully under 
stand it who have a mind kindred to that of its author ; and as any 
human production, upon which the mind of its author is impressed, 

1 An Historical Enquiry into the Probable Causes of the Rationalist Character 
of the Theology of Germany. By E. B. Pusey, M.A. Part I. p. 8. London : 


will be best understood by him whose intellectual and moral char 
acter is most allied to the original which it expresses. ... In 
religious writings it is plain that the spirit required is a religious 
spirit ; that none can truly understand St. Paul or St. John, whose 
mind has not been brought into harmony with theirs, has not been 
elevated and purified by the same Spirit with which they were filled ; 
and this, unquestionably, is what the pious Spener meant by his 
much disputed assertion, that none but the regenerate could under 
stand Holy Scripture" x 

Pusey withdrew both parts of his book from circulation, 
and Canon Liddon informs us that " he never referred to 
them without regret and self-condemnation " ; 2 and that 
" to the last he felt anxious as to the untoward influence/ 
as he called it, " of these books." In his will, dated Nov 
ember 19, 1875, he desired that " the two books on the 
Theology of Germany should not be republished." : At 
the period when this work was issued, Pusey s views as 
to Episcopacy were Protestant. " Pusey," says Canon 
Liddon, tl had not quite realised, as Rose had in fact 
implicitly asserted, that the Episcopate is an organic 
feature of the Church of Christ, the absence of which 
could not but be attended by spiritual disorder." 4 Even 
in 1836 Pusey believed that priestly absolution was not 
a judicial act. Writing to the Rev. ]. F. Russell on 
December 10, 1836, he remarked : " In Absolution, the 
contrast is not between < declaratory and ministerial, 
but between ministerial and judicial. It is this last 
which the Church of Rome holds and we do not." 5 In 
the preface to his Scriptural Views of Baptism, written in 
1836, Pusey declared that, in his opinion, " the Romanist, 
by the Sacrament of Penance," " would forestall the sentence 
of his Judge." Later on in life, Pusey accepted the 
doctrine that the priest acts as "judge" when bestowing 
Absolution the doctrine of the Church of Rome. 

But even when, in 1835, P use Y founded the Theo 
logical Society at Oxford, he had gone far away from 

1 Pusey s Historical Enquiry, Part I. pp. 26, 27. 

2 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. i. p. 173. 

3 Ibid. p. 176. 4 Ibid. p. 171. 5 Ibid. p. 401. 
6 Tracts for the Times. Preface to Nos. 67, 68, 69, p. xiv. 


Protestantism in many respects, and the consequence was 
that, while in theory the new Society was open to every 
party in the Church, it became practically a propaganda 
for Tractarianism. This is frankly acknowledged by 
Canon Liddon, who tells us that: " There can be no 
question of the influence of this Society on the Oxford 
Movement. It stimulated theological thought and work 
more than any other agency in Oxford at the time. . . . 
Above all, it fed both the British Magazine and the Tracts 
for the Times, especially the latter, with a series of essays 
upon subjects of which little was known or thought in 
those days." Canon Overton tells us that this Theo 
logical Society " was at first intended to be confined to 
no party in the Church. Men were invited to join who 
had no sympathy with the founder s views ; but these 
either declined or soon withdrew ; and the Society be 
came as much a part of the Movement as the Tracts 
themselves." 2 

At about the time when the Theological Society was 
founded, Pusey took into his house at Oxford three or four 
Bachelors of Arts, and kept them there at his own expense, 
in order that they might give themselves more fully to the 
study of Divinity. Of course, those selected were men 
likely to prove serviceable to the Oxford Movement. This 
plan was continued until the summer of 1838, when 
Newman took a house for the young men in St. Aldate s, 
Oxford, and for about two years it seems to have been 
under his control. It was to be used, Mr. J. B. Mozley 
(who was its first inmate) informed his sister, on April 27, 
1838, as "a reading and collating establishment, to help 
in editing the Fathers." 3 Newman seems to have looked 
upon this house as a home for " young Monks," and 
desired that his plans concerning it should be kept as 
secret as possible. His friend, Mr. J. W. Bowden, made a 
contribution towards the expenses of the house, and to him 
Newman wrote, on January 17, 1838: " Your offering 

1 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. i. p. 334. 

3 The Anglican Revival. By J. H. Overton, D.D., p. 67. London : 1897. 

8 Mozley s Letters, p. 78. 


towards the young Monks was just like yourself, and I 
cannot pay it a better compliment. It will be most 
welcome. As you may suppose, we have nothing settled, 
but are feeling our way. We should begin next Term ; 
but since, however secret one may wish to keep it, things get 
out, we do not yet wish to commit young men to any 
thing which may hurt their chance of success at any 
College, in standing for a fellowship." l 

The first volume of the now well-known Library of the 
Fathers was published on August 24, 1838, and the last 
in November 1885. The series comprised forty-eight 
volumes, and included the writings of thirteen Fathers, 
translated into English. It is remarkable that when, nearly 
two years before the first volume was issued, that well- 
known Evangelical and thoroughly Protestant clergyman, 
the Rev. E. Bickersteth, heard of the projected Library he 
wrote enthusiastically about it to Pusey, promising to 
become a subscriber, and adding : 

"Though personally unacquainted with you, and differing in 
some respects from views which, judging from the volumes of the 
Oxford Tracts, I suppose you hold, I cannot but write a few lines 
to express the sincere pleasure with which I view your design, in 
connection with Mr. Keble and Mr. Newman, of publishing a select 
Library of Fathers. Few things could be more seasonable, or more 
beneficial to the Church of England." 2 

When Mr. Bickersteth wrote this letter he probably 
expected that the Library would include all the Fathers of 
the first three centuries at least. If so, he must have been 
disappointed. Of the thirteen Fathers, whose writings 
were translated, only three wrote in the first three centuries, 
the remaining ten flourished in the fourth, fifth, sixth, and 
seventh centuries. It is well known that during the latter 
periods many false doctrines crept into the Church, and 
the tendency of the early Tractarians, as of their successors, 
the Ritualists, was to rely chiefly on the later Fathers, 
rather than on those who lived near Apostolic times. In 
1845 Bishop (afterwards Cardinal) Wiseman remarked, on 

1 Newman s Letters, vol. ii. p. 249. 

2 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. i. p. 435. 


the authority of Newman, that lt in Pusey s celebrated 
Sermon on the Eucharist, out of 140 texts of Fathers 
only four are from the first three centuries." x 

There is a very interesting passage on this subject in 
the late Lord Selborne s Memorials. His lordship, I may 
here mention, was a friend of the early Tractarians, and a 
sympathiser with their religious views ; but he afterwards 
became an opponent of the advanced section of the 
party :- 

" My father," writes Lord Selborne, " once said to my brother 
William repeating, unless I am mistaken, some words of Bishop 
Horsley, who knew the Fathers well that the Fathers must be 
read with caution. When Isaac Taylor, in his Ancient Christianity^ 
collected out of the Fathers many things tending to disturb the ideal 
conception of a golden primitive age of pure faith and practice ; and 
when William Goode, afterwards Dean of Ripon, in his Divine Rule 
of Faith and Practice, called the Fathers themselves as witnesses in 
favour of the direct use of Scripture for the decision of controversies, 
some of those who placed confidence in the Oxford Divines, but were 
themselves ignorant of the Fathers, waited anxiously for answers 
which never came. I remember a reply once made to myself, when 
I asked whether anybody was going to answer Isaac Taylor, whose 
work I perceived to be producing in some quarters a considerable 
effect. I was told that in a little time he would answer himself, 
which he never did. It seemed plain that, although the advocates 
of Patristic authority might be powerful in attack, they were weak in 
defence." 2 

The Oxford Movement suffered a great loss by the 
death, on February 28, 1836, of the Rev. Richard Hurrell 
Froude, at the early age of 33. Young as he was, his 
influence on the Oxford Movement was next only to that 
of Keble and Newman. At the time of his death he had 
done more than either of these to move the Tractarians in 
a Romeward direction. The Rev. Thomas Mozley, who 
was personally acquainted with Froude, tells us that : " He 
was a High Churchman of the uncompromising school, 
very early taking part with Anselm, Becket, Laud, and the 

1 Life and Times of Cardinal Wiseman, vol. i. p. 434. 

3 Memorials Family and Personal^ 1766-1865. By the Earl of Selborne, 
vol. i. p. 210. 


Nonjurors. Woe to any one who dropped in his hearing 
such phrases as the Dark Ages, Superstition, Bigotry, 
Right of Private Judgment, enlightenment, march of mind, 
or progress." His influence on Newman, leading him to 
adopt many Roman Catholic doctrines and practices, was 
very great. Of Froude, Newman writes : 

" His opinions arrested and influenced me, even when they did 
not gain my assent. He professed openly his admiration of the 
Church of Rome, and his hatred of the Reformers. He delighted 
in the notion of an hierarchical system, of sacerdotal power, and of 
full ecclesiastical liberty. He felt scorn of the maxim, * The Bible 
and the Bible only is the religion of Protestants ; and he gloried in 
accepting Tradition as a main instrument of religious teaching. He 
had a high severe idea of the intrinsic excellence of Virginity ; and 
he considered the Blessed Virgin its great pattern. He delighted in 
thinking of the Saints ; he had a keen appreciation of the idea of 
sanctity, its possibility and its heights ; and he was more than 
inclined to believe a large amount of miraculous interference as 
occurring in the early and Middle Ages. He embraced the principle 
of penance and mortification. He had a deep devotion to the 
Real Presence, in which he had a firm faith. He was powerfully 
drawn to the Mediaeval Church, but not to the Primitive. ... It 
is difficult to enumerate the precise additions to my theological 
creed which I derived from a friend to whom I owe so much. He 
made me look with admiration towards the Church of Rome, and 
in the same degree to dislike the Reformation. He fixed deep in 
me the idea of devotion to the Blessed Virgin, and he led me 
gradually to believe in the Real Presence." 2 

We thus learn that, for ten years at least before 
Newman announced his secession to the Papacy, he had 
" looked with admiration towards the Church of Rome," 
and " disliked " that Protestant Reformation which, while 
a clergyman in the Church of England, he did his best 
to destroy. It is evident that Newman s heart was with 
Rome many years before he left the Church of England. 
First of all, at the very commencement of the Oxford 
Movement, as he tells us : " I learned to have tender feel 
ings towards her [Church of Rome] ; but still my reason 

1 Mozley s Reminiscences of the Oxford Movement, vol. i. p. 226. 

2 Newman s Apologia Pro Vita Sua, 1st edition, pp. 85-87. 


was not affected at all. My judgment was against her, 
when viewed as an institution, as truly as it had ever been. 
This conflict between reason and affection I expressed in 
one of the early Tracts, published July 1834 ... As a 
matter, then, of simple conscience, though it went against 
my feelings, I felt it to be a duty to protest against the 
Church of Rome . . . / did not at all like the work. Hurrell 
Froude attacked me for doing it ; and besides, I felt that 
my language had a vulgar and rhetorical look about it. 
I believed, and really measured my words when I used 
them ; but I knew that I had a temptation, on the other 
hand, to say against Rome as much as ever I could, in 
order to protect myself against the charge of Popery" ] 

It is very easy to persuade ourselves that those whom 
we love are in the right, and most unpleasant to say 
anything against them. Newman s affections and " feel 
ings " went out to Rome first, and after a time his reason 
followed them. There are many in a similar position 
at the present time : they are guided by feelings instead 
of reason ; by what they like rather than by what God 
requires in His Holy Word. We know that Newman 
kept his love of Rome a secret from the public for several 
years after Froude s death, and that his denunciations of 
Romanism were largely the result of a selfish desire to 
" protect himself from the charge of Popery " which was 
justly brought against him. How could any man be 
suspected of a leaning towards, and a love for, Rome, 
who wrote against her as Newman did ? One of his 
intimate friends, and a former curate of his, the Rev. Isaac 
Williams, says : " I have lately heard it stated from one 
of Newman s oldest friends, Dr. Jelf, that his mind was 
always essentially Jesuitical. 1 Before the public, at that 
time, Newman appeared as the enemy of Rome, while at 
heart and in secret he was her lover. 

Froude had written three of the Tracts for the Times. 
He was the author of Tract IX., on " Shortening the 
Church Service," in which he expressed the opinion 

1 Newman s Apologia Pro Vita Sua, 1st edition, pp. 127, 128. 

2 Autobiography of Isaac Williams, p. 54. 


that the Church services were already short enough ; 
and affirmed that our Reformers " added to the Matin 
Service what had hitherto been wholly distinct from it, 
the Mass Service or Communion" thus implying that 
the " Mass " and " Communion " were identical. He also 
held up the Church of Rome to the admiration of his 
readers because she had retained the " primitive mode 
of worship," in that she uses the Seven Canonical Hours 
of Prayer daily. This was but a small compliment to 
the Church of Rome, but it was a compliment never 
theless, and was published to the world as early as 
October 31, 1833, but a little over three months from 
the birth of the Oxford Movement. Tract LIX., " On the 
Position of the Church of Christ in England Relatively 
to the State and Nation/ was also written by Froude. 
In it he tried to prove that the Church of England is 
suffering from greater tyranny from the State than in 
the Dark Ages. " It cannot," he asserts, " be denied 
that at present it [Church of England] is treated far 
more arbitrarily, and is more completely at the mercy 
of the chance Government of the day, than ever our 
forefathers were under the worst tyranny of the worst 
times." l The author argues in favour of what he terms 
"State Protection" and against "State Interference" 
with the Church. Under the first of these heads, how 
ever (to his credit be it recorded), he objects to "the 
law De Excommunicate Capiendo, by which the State 
engages that on receiving due notice of the excommuni 
cation of any given person, he shall be arrested and put 
in prison until he is absolved." This he justly terms "a 
bad, useless law, which cannot be done away with too 
soon." : In this Tract Froude was careful not to let his 
readers know all that he believed about the connection 
of Church and State. He did say in it that he thought 
" State Interference " with the Church was an evil, but 
he did not tell them what Newman revealed nearly 
twenty-eight years after Froude s death, in his Apologia, 
"With Froude, Erastianism that is, the union (so he 

1 Tract LIX., p. 6. 2 Ibid. p. 3. 


viewed it) of Church and State was the parent, or if 
not the parent, the serviceable and sufficient tool, of 
Liberalism. Till that union was snapped, Christian 
doctrine could never be safe." l The last of Froude s 
contributions to the Tracts for the Times was Tract LXIIL, 
on " The Antiquity of the Existing Liturgies," in which he 
declared of those ancient documents, that " next to the 
Holy Scriptures, they possess the greatest claim on our 
veneration and study, 2 thus placing them above the 
present Liturgy of the Reformed Church of England in 
her Book of Common Prayer. He was careful also to 
point out that all of those Ancient Liturgies, which have 
such a high claim on our " veneration," contain a prayer 
" for the rest and peace of all those who have departed 
this life in God s faith and fear " ; also u A sacrificial obla 
tion of the Eucharistic bread and wine " ; and " A prayer 
of consecration, that God will make the bread and wine 
the Body and Blood of Christ. " 3 The tendency of this 
Tract is to produce the impression that the present 
Liturgy of the Church of England, because it does not 
contain either of the features just mentioned, is not of 
equal value with those extant Ancient Liturgies, " which 
possess the greatest claims on our veneration and study." 
It must be sorrowfully admitted that Froude s exhortation 
to " study " these ancient documents has not been in vain, 
and that the studies of his successors have not been con 
fined to the portions to which he called attention. The 
Ritualists of the present day do study the Liturgies of the 
past, but they prefer to imitate those which were in use 
in the Church of Rome during the darkest period of the 
Dark Ages of Christianity. 

The opinions expressed by Froude in the Tracts for the 
Times were extremely moderate, when compared with 
others which he held, but which were not made known 
to the public until after his death, when his writings were 
published in four volumes, edited by Keble and Newman. 
The first two volumes were issued in 1838, the others 

1 Apologia Pro Vita Sua, p. 107. 

2 Tract LXIIL, p. 16. 3 Ibid. p. 7. 


later on, under the general title of Remains of the late 
Reverend Richard Hurrell Froude, M.A. The public interest 
in these volumes mainly centred round the first, which 
produced a profound sensation throughout the country, 
owing to the startling statements in favour of Roman 
doctrines which it contained. Until then no one outside 
the Tractarian party seems to have even dreamt that it 
was possible that one of the chief and trusted leaders of 
the Oxford Movement could possibly have gone so far 
towards Rome, and yet retain his position as a clergyman 
of the Reformed Church of England. I subjoin some 
extracts from his " Letters to Friends " in the order in 
which they were published. The italics are mine. On 
August 31, 1833, Froude wrote : 

" It has lately come into my head that the present state of things 
in England makes an opening for revising the Monastic System. I 
think of putting the view forward under the title of c Project for 
reviving Religion in great towns. ... I must go about the country 
to look for the stray sheep of the true fold ; there are many about I 
am sure ; only that odious Protestantism sticks in people s gizzard. 
I see Hammond takes that view of the infallibility of the Church, 
which P. says was the old one. We must revive it" (vol. i. p. 

August, 1833. "Since I have been at home, I have been doing 
what I can to proselytise in an underhand way" (p. 322). 

September 16, 1833. " I should like to know why you flinch from 
saying that the power of making the Body and Blood of Christ is 
vested in the Successors of the Apostles" (p. 326). 

November 17, 1833. "Is it expedient to put forth any paper 
on the doctrine necessary to Salvation ? I am led to question 
whether Justification by Faith is an integral part of this doctrine. I 
have not breathed this to a soul but you, and express myself offhand. 
... I wish you could get to know something of S. and W., and 
un-ise, un-Protestantise, un-Miltonise them "(p. 331). 

January 9, 1834. "You will be shocked at my avowal, that I 
am every day becoming a less and less loyal son of the Reformation. 
It appears to me plain that in all matters that seem to us indifferent or 
even doubtful, we should conform our practices to those of the Church 
which has preserved its traditionary practices unbroken. We can 
not know about any seemingly indifferent practice of the Church of 
Rome, that it is not a development of the Apostolic ethos ; and it is 


to no purpose to say that we can find no proof of it in the writings 
of the six first centuries " (p. 336). 

August 22, 1834. "If you are determined to have a pulpit in 
your Church, which I would much rather be without, do put it at the 
west end of the Church, or leave it where it is ; every one can hear 
you perfectly, and what can they want more ? But whatever you do> 
pray don t let it stand in the light of the Altar, which, if there is any 
truth in my notions of Ordination, is more sacred than the Holy of 
Holies was in the Jewish Temple" (p. 372). 

October, 1834. "As to the Reformers, / think worse and worse 
of them. Jewell was what you would in these days term an irrever 
ent Dissenter. His Defence of the Apology disgusted me more than 
almost any work I ever read " (p. 379). 

December 26, 1834. "When I get your letter I expect a rowing 
for my Roman Catholic sentiments. Really / hate the Reformation 
and the Reformers more and more " (p. 389). 

January 1835. "^ am more an ^ more indignant at the Pro 
testant doctrine on the subject of the Eucharist, and think that the 
principle on which k is founded is as proud, irreverent, and foolish 
as that of any heresy, even Socinianism " (p. 391). 

January 1835. "I shall never call the Holy Eucharist The 
Lord s Supper, nor God s Priests * Ministers of the Word, or the 
Altar The Lord s Table, &c., &c. ; innocent as such phrases are in 
themselves, they have been dirtied ; a fact of which you seem 
oblivious on many occasions. Nor shall I even abuse Roman 
Catholics as a Church for anything except excommunicating us" 

(P- 395} 

February -25, 1835. "The Rural Dean and the Clergy went a 
whoring after the Wesleyans, Moravians, and the whole kit besides, 
to concoct a joint plan of general education " (p. 400). 

February 25, 1835. "I can see no other claim which the 
Prayer Book has on a Layman s deference, as the teaching of the 
Church, which the Breviary and Missal have not in a far higher 
degree" (p. 402). 

In the first volume of Froude s Remains there is a 
chapter headed, " Sayings and Doings." Unfortunately, 
with only two exceptions, no dates are mentioned when 
these sayings were uttered. There are two or three which 
are against Rome to a certain extent. He declared : 
" I never could be a Romanist ; I never could think all 
those things in Pope Pius Creed necessary to salvation. 
But I do not see what harm an ordinary Romanist gets 



from thinking so." ] On another occasion he termed the 
Romanists, " wretched Tridentines everywhere." But, 
inasmuch as, only one year before his death, he, as we 
have seen, declared that he would never " abuse Roman 
Catholics as a Church for anything, except excommuni 
cating us," I am inclined to think that his anti-Roman 
sayings must have been uttered some considerable time 
before his death. Two more of Froude s sayings may be 
cited here : " I wonder a thoughtful fellow like H. does 
not get to hate the Reformers faster." ft The Reformation 
was a limb badly set it must be broken again in order 
to be righted." 3 

These extracts will serve to make my readers under 
stand why the publication of Froude s Remains created 
such a stir throughout the country. Moderate High 
Churchmen, like Samuel Wilberforce, deplored their publi 
cation, as likely to do " irreparable injury." Archdeacon 
Edward Churton said that one result of the Remains was 
to " give deep offence to many minds, and to unsettle the 
principles of many more." 5 They were edited by Keble 
and Newman, but in their preface to the first volume not 
one word of censure of Froude s disloyal utterances is to 
be found. On the contrary, the editors appear therein 
as his apologists, contenting themselves, by way of caution, 
with saying in the mildest possible manner : " It can 
hardly be necessary for them to add, what the name of 
editor implies, that while they of course concur in his 
[Froude s] sentiments as a whole, they are not to be 
understood as rendering themselves responsible for every 
shade of opinion or expression." ( Pusey hailed the publi 
cation with pleasure. " For myself," he said, tl I am very 
glad of the publication of the Remains; they may very 
likely be a check, but that in itself may be the very best 
thing for us, and prevent a too rapid and weakening 
growth." 7 

But the Rev. Dr. Faussett, Lady Margaret s Professor 

1 Froude s Remains, vol. i. p. 434. 2 Ibid. p. 434. 3 Ibid. pp. 434, 433. 

4 Life of Bishop Wilberforce, vol. i. p. 112. 

5 Life of Joshua Watson, p. 270, 2nd edition. 

6 Froude s Remains, vol. i. p. xxii. 7 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. ii. p. 45. 


of Divinity in the University of Oxford, was not at all 
pleased with the publication of Froude s Remains. He 
felt, and rightly felt, that the work was calculated, on the 
whole, to glorify the Church of Rome, and to disparage 
the Church of England, and to hold up to public con 
tempt that Protestantism of which Englishmen were justly 
proud. Accordingly, he determined to raise his voice in 
the University pulpit, not only against the Remains, but 
also against certain statements of the Tracts for the Times, 
and of the British Critic, of which at that time Newman 
was editor. On Sunday, May 20, 1838, Dr. Faussett 
preached before the University of Oxford a sermon on 
The Revival of Popery, which became a bombshell in the 
enemies camp. It was subsequently published as a pam 
phlet. The text selected by the preacher was : " Come 
out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her 
sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues " (Rev. xviii. 
4). He first of all directed attention to the revival of 
genuine Popery in the country, and then proceeded to 
show how the cause of Rome was being assisted by certain 
trusted leaders of the Tractarians. He admitted that " a 
few unguarded statements, the result probably of indi 
vidual haste and indiscretion," might easily have been 
passed over without " any severity of censure." 

" But," he added, " when they assume more and more unequi 
vocally the marks of deliberation and design, the evidence of 
numbers and of combination ; when the most plausible palliations 
of Romish corruption, and the most insidious cavils against the 
wisdom, and even in some measure the necessity, of the Reforma 
tion, find their way into the periodical and popular and most widely 
disseminated literature of the day ; when the wild and visionary 
sentiments of an enthusiastic mind [Froude s], involving in their 
unguarded expression and undisguised preference for a portion at 
least of Papal superstition, and occasionally even a wanton outrage 
on the cherished feelings of the sincere Protestant his pious affec 
tion for those venerated names which he habitually associates with 
the inestimable blessings of the Reformation are dragged forth 
from the sanctuary of confidential intercourse, and recommended to 
the public as a witness of Catholic views, and to speak a word in 
season for the Church of God ; as likely to suggest thoughts on 


doctrine, on Church policy, and on individual conduct, most true 
and most necessary for these times, and as a bold and compre 
hensive sketch of a new position for the Church of England ; and 
this, too, under circumstances which imply the concurrence and 
approval, and responsibility too, of an indefinite and apparently 
numerous body of friends and correspondents and editors and 
reviewers ; who shall any longer deny the imperative necessity 
which exists for the most decisive language of warning and caution, 
lest these rash projectors of a new position for our Church should be 
unwarily permitted to undermine and impair her old and approved 
defences." l 

" To affirm," said the preacher, " that these persons are strictly 
Papists, or that within certain limits of their own devising they are 
not actually opposed to the corruptions and the Communion of 
Rome, would, I believe, be as uncharitable as it is untrue. But who 
shall venture to pronounce them safe and consistent members of 
the Church of England ? and who shall question the obvious ten 
dency of their views to Popery itself? For if by some happy con 
sistency they are themselves, and for the present, saved from the 
natural consequences of their own reasoning, what shall we hope 
for the people at large, should these delusive speculations (which 
God in His infinite mercy forbid) extend their influence beyond the 
circle (and it is hoped not yet a very extensive circle) of educated 
men, to which they are at present limited ? If such should become 
the ordinary instruction of the unwary pastor to his credulous flock, 
what shall preserve them from all the fascinations and idolatries of 
the Mass, or from welcoming with open arms those crafty emissaries 
who have already succeeded to such a fearful extent in reimposing 
the yoke of spiritual bondage on the neck of our deluded country 
men?" 2 

Dr. Faussett rendered an important service to the 
Church of England by his faithful and outspoken sermon. 
Its warnings were greatly needed, and seem to us now 
almost prophetic. All that he foretold, and more than all, 
has come true in our own day, and to an extent which 
Dr. Faussett never could have anticipated. He proved 
his case by numerous quotations from the writings of the 
men whose conduct he so justly denounced. Of course 
they did not like it. Those who do wrong never love the 

1 The Revival of Popery. By Godfrey Faussett, D.D., ist edition, pp. 13-15. 
Oxford: Parker. 1838. 

2 Ibid. p. 24. 


man who has given them a richly deserved castigation. 
Dr. Faussett s was not the first public attack on the 
teaching of the Tractarians, but it was, I believe, the first 
which they had condescended to reply to publicly. Of 
these, perhaps, the most noteworthy was that written by 
the Rev. Peter Maurice, Chaplain of New and All Souls 
College, Oxford, and published by him with the title of 
Popery in Oxford, in 1837. He declared that "an attack 
is made by this newly organised system [Tractarianism] 
upon the very vitals of our religion, as embodied in the 
Book of Common Prayer," l and he brought against the 
party a charge of secrecy, just sixty years before the 
publication of the first edition of my Secret History of the 
Oxford Movement: 

"We find," he said, "a party, whom nobody knows> though every 
body seems to pay deference to, entering into a combination, and 
issuing Tracts in the capacity of Members of the University of 
Oxford, containing the most absurd statements that ever issued 
from any body of educated men, addressed to the clergy as well as 
to the laity as if they were vested with supernatural powers ; and 
moreover (who would credit it ?) suppressing their names" 2 

"What are the names of these our Members [of the University 
of Oxford]. Let them be announced, that we may know them, at 
least by name. Had I not found Dr. Pusey there, by name, I 
should have scorned to put my name alongside of his. I fight in 
the daylight, neither with small nor great, but with those only who 
are not ashamed of their doings." 8 

The Islington Evangelical clergy censured the Tract- 
arians. Writing on January 6, 1837, Mr. Dods worth 
(one of the Tractarians) said : " I hear that there was a 
most violent and abusive attack on us at a meeting of 
clergy at Islington yesterday, and great alarm expressed 
at the spread of High Church principles, which they did 
not scruple to denounce as heretical." 4 Later on in the 
same year Archdeacon Spooner, of Coventry, in charging 
the clergy of his Archdeaconry, denounced the Tracts for 

1 Popery in Oxford. By Peter Maurice, M.A., p. 4. London : 1837. 

2 Ibid. p. 4. * Ibid. p. II. 
4 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. ii. p. 12. 


the Times in vigorous terms. To him belongs the honour 
of giving utterance to the first official condemnation of 
the Oxford Movement. Pusey wrote to the Archdeacon 
a private letter of remonstrance, which brought back a 
reply, in the course of which the Archdeacon disclaimed 
any intention of imputing any intentional dishonesty to 
the writers of the Tracts, but adding that he believed that 
" the respectable and learned authors of those Tracts were, 
unawares to themselves, injuring the pure and Scriptural 
doctrines of the Protestant faith." 1 At about this time 
the Bishop of Oxford received so many letters of com 
plaint against the Tractarians that he felt it necessary to 
write to Dr. Pusey on the subject, asking him for an ex 
planation. This Dr. Pusey gave in a long letter, dated 
September 26, 1837, in which he specially dealt with the 
charges brought against his friends by Mr. Peter Maurice, 
whose book on Popery in Oxford had by this time caused 
a great stir throughout the country, and had been quoted 
by Canon G. Stanley Faber, of Durham, in a Charge 
which he delivered to the clergy. The charges brought 
against Mr. Newman and his friends by Mr. Maurice 
were : (i) Needless bowings ; (2) turning to the East while 
reading certain prayers ; (3) the use of a Credence Table; 
and (4) the use of a stole with embroidered crosses. Dr. 
Pusey did not deny the truth of either of these charges, 
excepting the first, stating that there had been " no 
bowings, except at the name of our Lord " ; as to the 
other charges he endeavoured to prove that they were 
directed against lawful practices. But, inasmuch as he 
was writing a private letter to his Bishop, Dr. Pusey 
was not ashamed to unjustly slander an opponent in his 
letter : 

"The reports," against his friends, he informs his lordship, 
" began with a Mr. Maurice, a Chaplain of New College, who seems 
a very excited and vain and half-bewildered person, who seems to 
think that he is called by God to oppose what he calls the Popery 
of Oxford. He published a heavy pamphlet, which would have 

1 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. ii. p. 14. 


died a natural death had not the Christian Observer wished to have 
a blow at Mr. Newman and the High Church, and so taken it up 
though with a sort of protest against identifying itself with Mr. 
Maurice s language ; and thence, I am sorry to say, Mr. Townsend, 
Prebendary of Durham, has repeated it in a Charge to the Clergy 
of the Peculiar of N. Allerton and Allertonshire. " 1 

After all, this u very excited and vain and half- 
bewildered person/ as Pusey insultingly termed Mr. 
Maurice, had only told the truth. I had the pleasure 
of Mr. Maurice s personal acquaintance many years later, 
and found in him no trace of being either a " vain " or a 
" half-bewildered person." Down to his death, at an 
advanced age, he was ever foremost in exposing the 
misdeeds of the Romanisers. His two volumes on The 
Ritualists or Non-Natural Catholics, now long since out of 
print, contain a considerable quantity of useful though 
badly-arranged information concerning the history of 
the Oxford Movement, to be found nowhere else. 2 

Though the Tractarians were much annoyed at these 
criticisms, they were careful to abstain as far as possible 
from taking public notice of anything said against them. 
But when Dr. Faussett publicly denounced them in such 
.vigorous terms from the University pulpit, and held them 
up to the reprobation of all loyal Churchmen, they could 
keep silence no longer. His sermon was not published 
until June 2ist, and yet before the next day was over 
Newman had written a reply of 104 pages. It was a 
calmly written and clever document, in which all the 
subtlety for which he was famous seems to have been 
called into action. He complains much of Dr. Faussett 
that, in his sermon, he had not proved that the opinions 
and practices he condemned were " inconsistent with the 
doctrines of our Church." 3 Newman here very con 
veniently chose to forget that Dr. Faussett was addressing 
men whom he knew to be already (with but few excep- 

1 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. ii. pp. 14, 15. 

2 The Ritualists or Non-Natural Catholics. By the Rev. Peter Maurice, D.D. 
London : J. F. Shaw & Co., pp. xxiv. and 191. Sequel to the Ritualists. By the 
Rev. Peter Maurice, D.D., p. 188. Yarnton : 1875. 

3 A Letter to the Rev. Godfrey Fans sett, D.D., on Certain Points of Faith and 
Practice. By the Rev. J. H. Newman, B.D., 2nd edition, 1838, p. 6. 


tions) convinced that the doctrines and practices censured 
were inconsistent with the doctrines of the Church of 
England. He had no need to stop and argue the case 
with men who were already convinced. His object was 
to expose a subtle attempt to revive Popery in the Church 
of England, and in proof of the existence of such an 
attempt he gave ample extracts from Froude s Remains, the 
Tracts for the Times, and the British Critic. It was simply 
impossible, in the course of the sermon, to give the proof 
demanded. Newman certainly had a point against his 
opponent when he complained that he had not cited what 
Froude had written against the Church of Rome. Not 
that Newman had much to gain from those passages, 
which had been specially cited by the editors of the 
Remains in their preface. Bishop (afterwards Cardinal) 
Wiseman, in the Dublin Review, commenting on the argu 
ment sought to be built on these anti-Roman utterances 
of Froude, justly remarks : 

" We think we are justified in saying that proofs of Mr. Froude s 
disinclination to Catholicity must have been very scarce, for the 
editors to have been induced to bring together these superficial 
observations, made during a brief residence in a Catholic city, not 
generally reputed one of the most edifying. These, however, will 
not bear comparison with the growing and expanding tendency of 
his mind towards everything Catholic ; and we cannot help feeling, 
as we peruse his later declarations, that the passages brought so 
prominently forward by his editors, would have been among those 
which, dying, he would have wished to blot." 1 

There is an interesting statement by Newman at page 
25 of his pamphlet, in which he declares that: "It is 
idolatry to bow down to any emblem or symbol as divine 
which God Himself has not appointed ; and since He has 
not appointed the worship of images, such worship is 
idolatrous ; though how far it is so, whether in itself or in 
given individuals, we may be unable to determine." He 
then proceeds to argue at considerable length in favour of 
the doctrine of the Real Presence, though he repudiates 

1 Cardinal Wiseman s Essays on Various Subjects, vol. ii. p. 80. 


Transubstantiation. He denies that the Church of Rome 
is " the mother of harlots/ but terms her " our ancient 
Mother." l As to " the rite of the Roman Church, or St. 
Peter s Liturgy," he terms it a " sacred and most precious 
monument/ 2 and adds : 

" Well was it for us that they [the Reformers] did not discard it, 
that they did not touch any vital part ; for through God s good 
providence, though they broke it up and cut away portions, they did 
not touch life ; and thus we have it at this day, a violently treated, 
but a holy and dear possession, more dear perhaps and precious 
than if it were in its full vigour and beauty, as sickness or infirmity 
endear us to our friends and relatives." 3 

This was, of course, equivalent to asserting that the 
Communion Service of the Church of England is not in a 
state of spiritual " vigour and beauty " ; but rather in a 
state of " sickness or infirmity " thus showing clearly 
how much Newman admired the Church of Rome s Mass 
Book. Of course he repudiated Dr. Faussett s assertion 
that the work of himself and his friends tended to a 
" Revival of Popery," and was calculated to lead men to 
Rome. Yet within little more than seven years he prac 
tically proved the charge by seceding to Rome himself ; 
and it is the biographer of Dr. Pusey who tells us that 
" to Newman himself, when a Roman Catholic, the 
Movement seemed to have been a steady impulse towards 
Rome." 4 In his Letter to Dr. Faussett Newman did not 
censure any of Froude s extravagant statements. 

Dr. Hook was at that time Vicar of Leeds, where he 
was busily engaged in promoting High Church principles. 
It was his boast that he had learned and accepted Tract- 
arian doctrines before the commencement of the Tract- 
arian Movement. Later on in life he came into direct 
conflict with the advanced party, whom he boldly charged 
with Romanising ; indeed, the first indication of disagree 
ment came out in connection with the publication of 
Froude s Remains. In August 1838 Hook was selected 
by the Bishop of Ripon (Dr. C. T. Longley) to preach the 

1 Newman s Letter to Dr. Faussett^ p. 33. 2 Ibid. p. 46. 

3 Ibid. p. 47. 4 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. ii. p. 80. 


sermon at his Primary Visitation, and soon afterwards he 
published it. He availed himself of the opportunity to 
add some lengthy notes to it, in which he dealt with the 
Tracts for the Times, Froude s Remains, and Dr. Faussett s 
sermon on The Revival of Popery. For the two former he 
had a mixture of praise and blame ; but for the latter 
nothing but unmixed censure and vulgar personal insult 
and abuse. As to the Tracts for the Times, he said: 

" Against some of the pious opinions supported in these Tracts 
objections may occasionally be raised, for perfect coincidence of 
opinion is not to be expected. I do not, myself, accord with all the 
opinions expressed in them, or always admit the deduction attempted 
to be drawn from the principles on which we are agreed. I think, 
too, that while manfully vindicating the principles of the English Re 
formation, in their fear lest they should appear to respect persons too 
highly, the writers of the Tracts do not appreciate highly enough the 
character of some of our leading Reformers, or make due allowance 
for the difficulties in which they were placed. ... I am not one of 
those who would say, Read the Oxford Tracts, and take for granted 
every opinion there expressed, but I am one of those who would 
say, Read and digest those Tracts well, and you will have imbibed 
principles which will enable you to judge of opinions. ;l 

As to Froude s Remains, and Dr. Faussett s sermon, 
Dr. Hook gave his opinion in one lengthy paragraph : 

"The present discourse," he said, "is sufficient to show that I 
am not, any more than Dr. Faussett, inclined to approve of Mr. 
Froude s Remains. I deeply, indeed, regret the publication of that 
work without a protest, on the part of the editor, against some of 
the author s paradoxical positions. With a kind heart and glowing 
sensibilities, Mr. Froude united a mind of wonderful power, saturated 
with learning, and, from its very luxuriance, productive of weeds, 
together with many flowers . . . from many of his opinions the 
majority of his readers will, like myself, dissent. But if, in con 
templating the evils inseparable from a great movement, he does 
not sufficiently appreciate, and I think he does not, the wisdom of 
our Reformation, or the virtues of many of our Reformers ; if while 
condemning the Romish he censures the English Church; still, 
while we think him to be in error in these particulars, we may do 

1 A Call to Union on the Principles of the English Reformation. By Walter 
Farquhar Hook, D.D., 2nd edition, pp. 108-110. London: 1838. 


so without condemning him by wholesale; still less ought those 
persons to condemn him for not fully appreciating our Reformation, 
who, like Mr. Scott, consider the work of the Reformers, in retain 
ing our present Baptismal Service, a burden hard to bear, an 
absurdity which they did not believe in their hearts. Had Dr. 
Faussett contented himself with having written a pamphlet or a 
review, while we might have considered him incompetent to sit in 
judgment on such a mind as Mr. Froude s, we should have had 
no cause of complaint. But cause of complaint the Church has 
when he makes one work a pretext for attacking certain of his 
clerical brethren, whose learning he may be unable to appreciate, 
but whose piety and zeal he would do well to imitate ; when he uses 
the pulpit to compel that attention to himself which he could not 
secure from the press." 1 

Hook s sermon pleased nobody altogether. His 
Oxford friends were bitterly disappointed. On receiving 
a copy of it Pusey wrote to Newman in sorrowful tones : 
" I send you Hook s sermon, which Parker brought me 
to-day, to read in your way back ; it shows me that my 
letters have been wasted upon him, for he will neither 
say one thing nor the other ; not say wherein he disagrees, 
and yet say that he does disagree. However, what he 
does say will do good, and perhaps keep some young ones 
quiet. What he says about Froude is as much as you 
could expect." * 

In the month of July 1838, the Bishop of Oxford 
(Dr. Bagot) delivered his third Visitation Charge, which 
greatly disturbed Newman, when he read a report of it in 
an Oxford paper. Indeed he was so upset that he de 
termined to give up publishing any more Tracts for the 
Times, under the impression, as he told Pusey, that "an 
indefinite censure was cast over the Tracts" by the 
Bishop s Charge. Pusey also was troubled : " It is," he 
wrote to Newman, "not simply disheartening ; it seems like 
a blow from which I shall never live to see things recover." 3 
Pusey entered into a correspondence with the Bishop on 
the subject. His lordship said that he hoped the Tracts 
would not be given up, and he felt sure that when Pusey 

1 Hook s Call to Union, pp. 167, 168. 2 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. ii. p. 66. 
3 Ibid. pp. 53, 54. 


read what he had said in his published Charge, he would 
form a different judgment. When the Charge did appear 
in print, Pusey was surprised, and wrote to the Bishop: 
" What your lordship says about our Tracts looks different 
from what it did when extracted and put forth by the 
Oxford Journal and the like. I need hardly say to your 
lordship that I am, for myself, perfectly satisfied, grateful 
for your lordship s advice, and for the warning to those 
who are more or less our pupils." * I have not been able 
to see the report of the Bishop s Charge as it appeared 
in the Oxford Journal; but certainly as it appeared in 
pamphlet form, and as issued by the Bishop himself, 
Newman and Pusey had little or nothing to complain of, 
but, on the contrary, a great deal to be thankful for. 
The fact is that Dr. Bagot was, at this time, a great 
admirer of the Tracts for the Times, and, so far as I can 
ascertain, he was the first Bishop in England who publicly 
said a good word in their favour. These were the Bishop s 
words as issued by himself : 

" With reference to errors in doctrine, which have been imputed 
to the series of publications called the Tracts for the Times, it can 
hardly be expected that, on an occasion like the present, I should 
enter into, or give a handle to anything which might hereafter tend 
to controversial discussions. Into controversy I will not enter. 
But, generally speaking, I may say that in these days of lax and 
spurious liberality, anything which tends to recall forgotten truths is 
valuable: and where these publications have directed men s minds 
to such important subjects as the union, discipline, and the authority 
of the Church, I think they have done good service ; but there may 
be some points in which, perhaps, from ambiguity of expression, or 
similar causes, it is not impossible, but that evil rather than the 
intended good may be produced on minds of a peculiar temperament. 
I have more fear of the Disciples than of the Teachers. In speaking 
therefore of the authors of the Tracts in question, I would say that 
I think their desire to restore the ancient discipline of the Church 
most praiseworthy ; I rejoice in their attempts to secure a stricter 
attention to the Rubrical directions in the Book of Common Prayer; 
and I heartily approve the spirit which would restore a due ob 
servance of the Fasts and Festivals of the Church : but I would 

1 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. ii. p. 62. 


implore them, by the purity of their intentions, to be cautious, both 
in their writings and actions, to take heed lest their good be evil 
spoken of; lest in their exertions to re-establish unity, they un 
happily create fresh schism ; lest in their admiration of antiquity, 
they revert to practices which heretofore have ended in superstition." 1 

It will be observed that in this statement the Bishop did 
not censure the writers of the Tracts for the Times for any 
thing they had written ; he only expressed his fears lest in 
the future they should go too far in the direction of super 
stition ; and for his words of warnings of danger he 
received, as we have seen, the thanks of Pusey. Instead 
of censuring the Tracts which had appeared, he praised 
them highly ; and in order to prevent any misconception 
as to his meaning, in a footnote to the second edition of 
his Charge the Bishop wrote : " As I have been led to 
suppose that the above passage [cited above] has been 
misunderstood, I take this opportunity of stating, that it 
never was my intention therein to pass any general censure 
on the Tracts for the Times." When the Bishop delivered 
his Charge churchmen everywhere were talking about 
Froude s Remains, its denunciation of the Reformers, and 
its praise of what ordinary persons called Popery. But 
on this burning subject the Bishop said nothing. His 
silence, under such circumstances, was worthy of severe 

There was one result of the publication of Froude s 
Remains which its editors never anticipated. It led to the 
erection of the Martyrs Memorial at Oxford, in memory of 
Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer, who were burnt alive in 
that city. A prospectus of the proposed Memorial, issued 
in 1838 by the Heads of Houses in Oxford, stated 
that it was intended to be " A public testimony of respect 
for the principles of the Reformation, and veneration for 
the personal character of the Martyred Bishops." When 
Pusey first heard of the scheme, he exclaimed that it " is 
nothing but a cut at us ! " It certainly placed Pusey, 

1 A Charge delivered to the Clergy of the Diocese of Oxford. By Richard 
Bagot, D.D., Bishop of Oxford, 2nd edition, pp. 20, 21. 1838. 

2 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. ii. p. 64. 


Newman, and Keble, and their friends in a very awkward 
and uncomfortable position. They dreaded the public 
odium which would inevitably fall upon them if they refused 
altogether to have anything to do with the Memorial ; and 
yet they hated the whole scheme with all their hearts. 
Pusey informed Keble that he " had spoken strongly lately 
against the Memorial, as perhaps falling within the scope of 
onr Lord s words against t building the sepulchres of those 
whom their fathers had slain/ and AS UNKIND TO THE 
CHURCH OF ROME, in throwing a hindrance to her reform 
ing herself and healing the schism." ] It makes one justly 
indignant to see tender consideration thus shown towards 
the criminal, and none at all for her innocent victims. If 
Rome had ever repented of her crimes in burning the 
Marian Martyrs, it might have been " unkind " to remind 
her of her former misdeeds ; but she never has repented, 
or ever expressed a single word of regret for burning alive 
in Mary s reign, five Bishops, twenty-one divines, eight gen 
tlemen, eighty-four artificers, one hundred husbandmen, 
twenty-six wives, twenty widows, nine virgins, two boys, 
and two infants. The fact is that the Tractarians had no 
real respect for the Reformers, and some of them doubted 
whether they were Martyrs at all. " I cannot," said Keble, 
" understand how poor Cranmer could be reckoned a bona 
fide Martyr according to the rules of the Primitive Church. 
Was he not an unwilling sufferer? and did he not in the very 
final paper of his confession profess to hold in all points 
the doctrine of that Answer to Gardiner? And is not that 
doctrine such as the ancient Church would have called 
heretical?" So Cranmer was nothing better than a heretic, in 
Keble s estimation, and, therefore, not a Martyr at all ! One 
who was at that time a prominent Tractarian (the Rev. 
Thomas Mozley), subsequently wrote : " I have to own 
that, in spite of the telling illustrations of Mrs. Trimmer s 
History of England, I have never yet succeeded in getting 
up an atom of affection or respect for the three gentle 
men canonised in the < Martyrs Memorial at Oxford. As 

1 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. ii. p. 69. 
8 Ibid. p. 71. 


Lord Blachford once observed to me, Cranmer burnt 
well/ and that is all the good I know about him." l What 
Froude thought about the Reformers I have already cited. 
And Keble declared : " Anything which separates the 
present Church from the Reformers I should hail as a 
great good." : And even Dean Church, when, in later 
years, he wrote his book on The Oxford Movement, went so 
far as to declare : " It is safe to say that the Divines of 
the Reformation never can be again, with their confessed 
Calvinism, with their shifting opinions, their extravagant 
deference to the foreign oracles of Geneva and Zurich, 
their subservience to bad men in power, the heroes and 
saints of Churchmen." 3 It is evident that men who wrote 
like this, had they lived in the Reformation period, never 
would have led a movement against Rome leading to 
secession from her communion. 

Newman and his friends soon found that it was impos 
sible to stop the proposed Memorial ; and therefore they 
directed their energies to a vain attempt to spoil it. Pusey 
was not at all pleased when he heard that Dr. Sewell talked 
of placing on the Memorial an inscription bearing the 
expression tf Martyrs for the Truth." Mr. Churton pro 
posed that the Memorial should take the form of a new 
Church ; but Pusey on this point said that " it must not 
be the Martyrs Church, canonising them." He thought 
that the proposed new Church " must be called after some 
one already canonised, not by individuals." We thus see 
that Pusey had no objection to honouring in this way 
some one canonised by the Pope, which was an indirect 
way of acknowledging the Pope s power to canonise. On 
this point one of the biographers of Keble informs us that 
that gentleman, in one of his sermons, asserted of English 
Churchmen that " we are free to reverence all Saints of 
the Roman Communion." 5 

The Oxford Protestant Magazine for 1848, in some valu- 

1 Reminiscences of the Oxford Movement, vol. ii. p. 230. 

2 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. ii. p. 71. 

3 Church s Oxford Movement, p. 39, ist edition. 

4 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. ii. p. 66. 

5 John Keble. By Walter Lock, M. A., p. 149. 


able " Hints towards a History of Puseyism/ thus refers 
to the hindrances thrown in the way of the suggested 
Martyrs Memorial : 

" The originators and promoters of this design met with almost 
insurmountable obstacles. Their design, and the methods they 
adopted, were alike carped at. At a public meeting held in full 
term, in February 1839, not more than two hundred persons were 
present, and among these were some who, while professing to sup 
port the measure, cavilled and censured, and pronounced it a failure. 
Such was Mr. Greswell, the Oxford Chairman of Mr. Gladstone s 
Committee at the late election. Mr. Greswell, besides describing 
the movement as a perfect failure, ^2000 only having been pro 
mised, also strongly objected to the use of the word * Protestant as 
applied to the Church ; the word, he said, was not to be found in 
the Prayer Book. Cranmer, he thought, ought not to be praised, 
but recorded as a penitent." l 

The Bishop of Oxford paid a special visit to Pusey with 
a view to persuading him and his friends to help on the 
Memorial, and intimated that the Archbishop of Canter 
bury felt the same anxiety for their help. Pusey proposed 
to the Bishop " to change the Memorial from a com 
memoration of the Reformers into a thanksgiving for the 
blessings of the Reformation/ and he pressed the Bishop 
to endeavour to get the Archbishop to recommend this 
alteration. But it was all in vain ; Tractarian efforts to 
spoil the Memorial by depriving it of its leading charac 
teristic were happily defeated. The beautiful monument 
to Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer, still to be seen near 
St. Mary Magdalene Church, Oxford, was unveiled in 1841. 
" It was," says Mr. G. V. Cox, in his Recollections of Oxford, " a 
noble proof (though a somewhat tardy one), that Oxford 
still cherished the memory of those great martyrs to the 
Reformation. The subscription was a large one (^5000), 
and was raised with wonderful rapidity ; out of it, besides 
the Martyrs Memorial, was also built an additional aisle 
on the north side of Magdalen Parish Church, to be called 
"The Martyrs Aisle." It had been found impracticable 
to get a site in Broad Street, the actual scene of the Mar- 

1 Oxford Protestant Magazine, vol. for 1848, p. 597. 


tyrdom." l On the north side of the Memorial is the 
inscription, which well merits a place in these pages. It 
is as follows : 

"To the Glory of God, and in grateful commemoration of His 
servants, Thomas Cranmer, Nicholas Ridley, Hugh Latimer, Prelates 
of the Church of England, who, near this spot, yielded their bodies 
to be burned ; bearing witness to the sacred truths which they had 
affirmed and maintained against the errors of the Church of Rome ; 
and rejoicing that to them it was given not only to believe on Christ, 
but also to suffer for His sake. This Monument was erected by 
public subscription in the year of our Lord God, 1841." 

1 Recollections of Oxford. By G. V. Cox, M.A., 2nd edition, p. 305. 


Newman in 1839 Influenced by an article in the Dublin Review 
Remarkable acknowledgments Corporate Reunion with Rome 
Preparing the way for Rome The Pastor of Antwerp Breakfasts 
with Newman and his friends Startling and treasonable advice 
given him Pusey writes on Tendencies to Romanism He pleads 
for peace in the Church Dr. M Crie on the cry for peace Prayers 
for the Dead Breeks v. Woolfrey West v. Shuttleworth Egerton 
v. All of Rode Moresby Faculty Case Dr. Pusey begins to hear 
Confessions in 1838 In 1846 he goes to Confession for the first 
time His Protestant notes in the Works of Tertullian Wiseman 
hopes the Tractarians will "succeed in their work" He realises the 
Roman tendency of their teaching Extracts from the Tracts for 
the Times Margaret Chapel as a centre of Tractarianism Mr. 
Serjeant Bellasis Oakeley claims the right to "hold all Roman 
doctrine" He is prosecuted by the Bishop of London His licence 
revoked Pusey defends Oakeley Says the judgment against him 
has no moral force Pusey says he believes in Purgatory and Invo 
cation of Saints Thinks England and Rome " not irreconcilably at 
variance " Oakeley secedes to Rome. 

THE year 1839 was a memorable one in the life of 
Newman. It was during the summer of that year that 
(as he informed the Rev. J. B. Mozley four years later) : 
" It came strongly upon me, from first reading the Mono- 
physite controversy, and then turning to the Donatist, that 
we were external to the Catholic Church. I have never 
got over this." 1 Writing to Pusey, on August 28, 1844, 
he declared : " I am one who, even five years ago [i.e. 
1839], na d a strong conviction, from reading the history 
of the early ages, that we are not part of the Church." 2 
Writing again to Pusey, on March 14, 1845, Newman 
tells him : " My doubts [of the Catholicity of the Church 
of England] were occasioned by studying the Monophysite 
controversy which, when mastered, threw light upon all 
those which preceded it, not the least on the Arian. I 

1 Newman s Letters > vol. ii. p. 430. 2 Life of Pusey, vol. ii. p. 406. 


saw as clear as day (though I was well aware clear im 
pressions need not at once be truths) that our Church 
was in the position towards Rome of the heretical and 
schismatical bodies towards the Primitive Church. This 
was in the early summer of 1839 ; in the autumn, Dr. 
Wiseman s article on the Donatists completed my unsettle- 
ment. Since that time I have tried, first by one means, 
then by another, to overcome my own convictions." ] 
Newman s first impressions on reading Wiseman s article 
(which appeared in the Dublin Review, August 1839) were 
conveyed by him to his friend, Mr. F. Rogers, afterwards 
Lord Blachford : " Since I wrote to you," he tells him, 
" I have had the first real hit from Romanism which 
has happened to me. R. W., who has been passing 
through, directed my attention to Dr. Wiseman s article 
in the new Dublin. I must confess it has given me a 
stomach-ache." 2 

Now, to any ordinary mind it must seem strange that 
Newman, who confesses that he felt " strongly," in 1839, 
that the Church of England was " external to the Catholic 
Church," and who, at that time, had " clear impressions " 
that the position of the Church of England towards the 
Catholic Church was identical with that of the ancient 
" heretical and schismatical bodies," could possibly, with a 
comfortable conscience, remain " external to the Catholic 
Church " for another six years ! But Newman s mind 
being of a naturally Jesuitical kind, he seems to have 
set himself right with himself, by the following ingenious 
illustration (written within a fortnight from the time that 
he got the " stomach-ache") to his friend Mr. F. Rogers, 
and evidently intended to elicit his opinion of it : 

"Well, then," wrote Newman, "once more; as those who sin 
after Baptism cannot at once return to their full privileges, yet are 
not without hope, so a Church which has broken away from the 
centre of unity is not at liberty at once to return, yet is not nothing. 
May she not put herself into a state of penance? Are not her 
children best fulfilling their duty to her not by leaving her, but by 

1 Life of Pusey^ vol. ii. p. 450. 2 Newman s Letters , vol. ii. p. 286. 


promoting her return, and not thinking that they have a right to 
rush into such higher state as communion with the centre of unity 
might give them. If the Church Catholic, indeed, has actually 
commanded their return to her at once, that is another matter ; but 
this she cannot have done without pronouncing their present Church 
good for nothing, which I do not suppose Rome has done of us. 
In all this, which I did not mean to have inflicted on you, I assume, 
on the one hand, that Rome is right \ on the other, that we are not 
bound by uncatholic subscriptions." 1 

There is all the wisdom of the serpent in this scheme, 
though none of the innocence of the dove ; and after 
reading Newman s statements in subsequent years, I have 
no doubt that it served to quieten, if not altogether to 
silence, his own conscience for the next six years. The 
scheme was a subtle one, known in later years by the 
designation, " Corporate Reunion with Rome," as distinct 
from individual secession. Members of the Church of 
England were to " fulfil their duty to her, not by leaving 
her, but by promoting her return " to " the centre of 
unity " the Church of Rome. From this year the idea 
of Corporate Reunion with Rome seems to have been ever 
present to Newman, until he seceded to her in 1845. Of 
the year 1840 he writes: "I wished for union between 
the Anglican Church and Rome, if, and when it was 
possible ; and I did what I could to gain weekly prayers 
for that object." In October of this year he frankly 
admitted to a friend : " I fear I must allow that, whether 
I will or no, I am disposing them [those he influenced 
by his teaching] towards Rome. First, because Rome 
is the only representative of the Primitive Church besides 
ourselves ; in proportion then as they are loosened from 
the one, they will go to the other. Next, because many 
doctrines which / have held have far greater, or their only scope, 
in the Roman system." J And, therefore, he began to think 
of giving up St. Mary s Vicarage, Oxford, which he then 
held, and migrating to the Vicarage of Littlemore, where 
he might continue to teach, by pen and mouth, those 

1 Newman s Letters, vol. ii. p. 288. 

2 Newman s Apologia Pro Vita Sua, p. 222. 3 Ibid. p. 236. 


doctrines which, even at that time, he believed had " a far 
greater, or their only scope, in the Roman system." Was 
this honest ? After making such an important discovery, 
ought he not at once to have given up all Ministerial duty 
in the Church of England, and seceded to a Church where 
his peculiar doctrines have their only honest " scope " ? 
But, if he had at that time done this, what would have 
become of his schemes for Corporate Reunion with Rome ? 
To a Roman Catholic layman Newman wrote, on Septem 
ber 12, 1841 : "We are keeping people from you [Church 
of Rome], by supplying their wants in our own Church. 
We are keeping persons from you : do you wish us to 
keep them from you for a time or for ever ? It rests with 
you to determine. I do not fear that you will succeed 
among us ; you will not supplant our Church in the 
affections of the English nation ; ONLY THROUGH THE 
NATION. I wish, of course, our Church should be con 
solidated, with and through and in your communion^ for its 
sake, and your sake, and for the sake of unity." ] 

Only six days before Newman wrote the letter from 
which my last extract is given, Baron Bunsen described 
to a friend an incident in which Newman had recently 
taken part, and in which the Romish sympathies of 
Newman and his friends came out in a somewhat start 
ling manner : 

"The other day," wrote Baron Bunsen, on Sept. 6, 1841, 
"Sporlein, the good Pastor of Antwerp, my fellow-traveller, arrived 
on his pilgrimage to seek comfort in the Church and faith of this 
country. At Oxford he went to Newman, who invited him to 
breakfast for a conference on religious opinions. Sporlein 2 stated 
his difficulties, as resulting from the consistorial government being 
in the hands of unbelievers, which in the Evangelical Society which 
he had been tempted to join, the leading members protested against 
every idea of Church membership. The breakfast party consisted 
of fifteen young men, whom Newman invited to an expression of 
opinion and advice ; and the award (uncontradicted} was that Pastor 

1 Newman s Apologia Pro Vita Sua, pp. 312, 313. 

2 Sporlein had come over to England with a view to joining the Ministry of 
the Church of England. 


Sporlein, as a Continental Christian, was subject to the authority of 
the Bishop of Antwerp. 1 He objected that by that Bishop he would 
be excommunicated as a heretic. Of course ; but you will conform 
to his decision ? How can I do that, exclaimed Sporlein, * without 
abjuring my faith ? But your faith is heresy? * How ? Do you 
mean that I am to embrace the errors of Rome, and abjure the faith 
of the Gospel ? There is no faith but that of the Church. But 
my faith is in Christ crucified. * You are mistaken ; you are not 
saved by Christ, but in the Church. 

" Sporlein was thunderstruck. He looked around, asked again, 
obtained but the same reply, whereupon he burst out again with the 
declaration that he believed in Christ crucified, by whose merits 
alone he could be saved, and that he would not join the Church of 
Rome, abhorring her for intruding into the place of Christ. One 
after the other dropped away, and Newman, remaining with him 
alone, attempted an explanation which, however, did not alter the 
case. I repeated this lamentable story as Sporlein had told it to 
Hare and myself, and Pusey said it was like telling a man com 
plaining of toothache that the infallible remedy would be cutting off 
his head." 2 

No wonder that Baron Bunsen exclaimed, after writing 
the above pitiful story, " Oh, this is heartrending ! " It 
was so indeed. Here was a Protestant Pastor, anxious 
to join the Ministry of the Church of England, intro 
duced to a party of sixteen members of that Church 
(probably all clergymen), including Newman, and they, 
instead of smoothing his path, unanimously tell him to 
go off to the Church of Rome at once, and submit to 
the Popish Bishop of Antwerp ! Such advice was simply 
disgraceful to those who gave it. It was the advice of 
disloyal traitors within the camp. No wonder, too, that 
Sporlein "was thunderstruck." The high personal 
character of Baron Bunsen, and his intellectual powers, 
prevent us supposing for one moment that he was mis 
taken. I am glad, for Pusey s sake, that he did not see 
the wisdom of the advice of these thirteen treacherous 

We now return to Dr. Pusey, who had greatly 

1 Of course, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Antwerp. 

2 Memoir of Baron Bunsen, vol. i. pp. 613, 614, 1st edition. 


troubled the Bishop of Oxford, by finally refusing to 
have anything to do with the proposed Martyrs Memo 
rial. His lordship evidently saw the harm that would 
be done to the cause of the Tractarians through their 
conduct in holding aloof, and that its tendency would be 
to confirm the public in their belief that the whole party 
hated both the Reformers and the Reformation with all 
their hearts. So he wrote, on January 19, 1839, an 
earnest appeal on the subject : 

11 Let me then," wrote Dr. Bagot, " entreat you, then, by the love 
which (in spite of the assertions of your opposers in these days of 
misrepresentation) I am convinced you feel for our Reformed 
Church, if you cannot approve the Memorial, to make some declara 
tion at a fit time, and in what you may deem the fittest mode by 
letter or by publication of some sort such as shall stop the accusa 
tions of your being in any degree hostile to the Reformation, enable 
your friends to defend you from such charges, and put to silence 
the Romanists who wrongly but boldly claim you as countenancing 
them." 1 

This request led Pusey to write, shortly afterwards, his 
Letter to the Bishop of Oxford on the Tendencies to Romanism 
Imputed to Doctrines Held of Old, as Now, in the English 
Church. Within a few months it ran into its fourth 
edition, to which a special preface on " The Doctrine 
of Justification " was attached, thus making in all no less 
than 322 pages, including twenty pages of extracts from 
the Tracts for the Times, the Lyra Apostolica, and other 
publications of the Tractarians, and all with a view to 
"showing that to oppose Ultra-Protestantism is not to 
favour Popery." Here I may remark that what the Trac 
tarians, and their successors the Ritualists generally, mean 
by " Ultra- Protestantism" is Protestantism of the type mani 
fested by such men as Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, and Jewel ; 
that is, Protestantism without compromise ; but with 
abundance of courage to attack unscriptural doctrines. 
It must be here admitted that in theory Dr. Pusey always 
put himself forward as a friend of the Reformation, though 

1 Life of Pusey, vol. ii. p. 72. 


he refused to be called a disciple of those Reformers who, 
under God, were the means of bringing about the Re 
formation. And he certainly was, down to the day of his 
death, the warmest friend of Corporate Reunion with 
Rome to be found in the Church of England. Through 
out his Letter there appears that mourning over our un 
happy divisions, and that cry for peace in the Church, 
which comes with such a bad grace from the men who, 
alone, are responsible for the existence of our divisions, 
and are the real cause of banishing peace from the Church. 
There is nothing the Ritualists more desire than to be left 
alone in peace to do their work, and for this purpose they 
are ever pleading for a liberal and tolerant spirit in their 
opponents. What Dr. M Crie says of the enemies of the 
Church of Scotland at the commencement of the seven 
teenth century, may be applied to these modern disturbers 
of the peace of the Church of England. " We can con 
ceive nothing," he writes, " more impertinent and dis 
gusting than the cant of liberality, when assumed by men 
who, in the act of robbing the Church of her dearest 
privileges, affect to mourn over the contentions which are 
the fruits of their own selfish policy." l 

In his Letter to the Bishop of Oxford Pusey states that : 
{t The charges against us are heavy ; disaffection to our 
own Church, unfaithfulness to her teaching, a desire to 
bring in new doctrines, and to conform our Church more 
to the Church of Rome, to bring back either entire or 
modified Popery. He expresses the regret of himself 
and his friends that the Church of England had not " re 
tained more of what was ancient in the Breviary and the 
Missal, without approximating in any way to the corrup 
tions of modern Rome " ; 3 and he expresses the opinion 
that "the revisers of our Liturgy did unadvisedly in 
yielding some more explicit statements of doctrine to the 
suggestions of foreign Reformers, whose tone of mind was 
different from that of our Church." 4 Incidentally he 

1 Sketches of Scottish Church History. By the Rev. Thomas M Crie, p. 156, 
edition 1841. 

2 Pusey s Letter to the Bishop of Oxford, 4th edition, p. 10. 1840. 

3 Ibid. p. 15. 4 Ibid. p. 20. 


mentions that : " We feel no desire for the meeting of 
Convocation ; we are not even earnest in behalf of a 
repeal of the Statute of Praemunire, though it would cer 
tainly be becoming and just." l He claims that the position 
of the Tractarians is that of the " via media," " in contrast 
with Romanism on the one hand, and Ultra-Protestantism 
on the other " ; 2 and then he proceeds to state what he 
and his friends did hold. His first point is sufficiently 
startling to a Protestant Churchman. After stating that 
as to "the first five Articles" of the Church of England 
" the Church of Rome is allowed to have transmitted 
faithfully the doctrine of the Primitive Church/ Pusey 
proceeds : " Would, my Lord, that there were no signs of 
unsoundness on any other side ! But whereas a tradi 
tionary faith would be safe with regard to these essential 
Articles, in that it would depart neither to the right nor to 
the left from that which the Universal Church had attested to 
be the Apostolic and Scriptural Creed, the greater, because 
unsuspected, danger will beset those who profess to draw 
their faith, unaided, from Holy Scripture." 3 This, of 
course, was equivalent to saying that those Protestants who 
draw their faith direct from the Scriptures are in " greater " 
danger than those who, like the Tractarians, draw it 
through the muddy channels of the Church s traditions. 
We must ever claim our right to draw our faith direct 
from the fountain head, the Written Word of God ; but it 
is not true to assume that any Protestant does so " un 
aided." There is the aid of the Holy Spirit of God 
Himself, given in answer to prayer, and also the im 
portant aid obtained by comparing Scripture with Scrip 
ture. Pusey warns his readers against " the danger of an 
over anxiety to recede from Rome," 4 an offence of which, 
it must be admitted, neither Dr. Pusey nor his followers 
have ever been guilty. He declares that "it is probable 
that our Church means that things may be required to be 
believed (provided it be not upon peril of salvation) which 
are not proved by Holy Scripture ; but certain that, 

1 Pusey s Letter to the Bishop of Oxford, p. 21. 

2 Ibid. p. 22. 3 Ibid. pp. 22, 23. 4 Ibid. p. 25. 


according to her, things not in Holy Scripture may be 
subjects of belief" 1 thus opening a door which may 
lead the unwary to a belief in many of the worst errors 
of Popery, and all this in a subtle and Jesuitical explana 
tion of Article VI. Pusey was terribly afraid of Private 
Judgment, and therefore he cautions his readers on this 
point by assuring them that the tl children " of the Church 
"are not the arbiters, whether she pronounce rightly or 
no " 2 in expounding Holy Scripture. Apparently they 
are expected to shut their eyes and open their mouths and 
take without enquiry what "the Church "- which, to the 
individual, practically means his own clergyman may 
choose to give him. " Prove all things " seems to be no 
part of the Puseyite creed in the Scriptural sense. Ap 
parently they would have been horrified at the conduct of 
the Bereans of old who, in the exercise of their private 
judgment, would not believe even what St. Paul taught, 
until they proved his doctrine to be true out of the Old 
Testament Scriptures : " These were more noble than 
those in Thessalonica, in that they received the Word 
with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures 
daily, whether those things were so" (Acts xvii. n). At 
page 44 Pusey boldly declares that " no real (Ecumenical 
Council ever did " err, and that notwithstanding the clear 
statement of Article XXI. to the contrary, wherein we 
read that " General Councils . . . may err, and sometimes 
have erred, even in things pertaining unto God." He 
further quotes, with approval, a sermon of Newman in 
favour of the doctrine of the Infallibility of the whole 
Catholic Church. " Both we and Romanists," said 
Newman, "hold that the Church Catholic is unerring in 
its declarations of faith for saving doctrine ; but we differ 
from each other as to what is the faith, and what is the 
Church Catholic " 3 ; and : " We are at peace with Rome 
as regards the essentials of faith." 4 Pusey slanders 
decided Protestants when he most untruly declares that 

1 Pusey s Letter to the Bishop of Oxford, p. 28. a Ibid. p. 30. 

8 Ibid. p. 50. * Ibid. p. 51. 


" Ultra-Protestants " " prefer what is modern to what is 
ancient/ and " disparage Christian antiquity " 1 ; since, as 
is well known, instead of disparaging it, they are always 
appealing to Apostolic antiquity, as recorded in the Bible, 
and, as has been well said, tf prefer the Grandfathers [the 
Apostles] to the Fathers." Pusey then makes an attack 
on the Protestant doctrine of Justification by Faith only, 
assuring his readers that Lutherans, Wesleyans, "and a 
section of our own Church " by which he meant 
Evangelical Churchmen "have been taught that Justi 
fication is not the gift of God through His Sacraments, but 
the result of a certain frame of mind, of a going forth of 
themselves, and resting themselves upon their Saviour; this is 
the act whereby they think themselves to have been justified." 2 
This doctrine Pusey hated with all his heart, and thought 
it a greater evil than the Roman Catholic system of 
Justification. That system, he affirmed, had its " corrup 
tions " ; but " it bore witness to the holiness of God." 3 
The Evangelical system, however, is, he affirms, " altogether 
a spurious system, misapplying the promises of the Gospel, 
usurping the privileges of Baptism, which it has not to 
bestow." 4 

In this Letter Pusey professes his faith in the doctrine 
of the Real Presence, while repudiating the doctrine of 
Transubstantiation. He says that he believes in " the 
spiritual unseen Presence of that Blessed Body and Blood, 
conveyed to us through the unchanged though consecrated ele 
ments, unchanged in material substance, changed in their 
use, their efficacy, their dignity, mystically and spiritually. 
We see not why we need avoid language used by the 
Fathers . . . that the bread and wine is made the 
Body and Blood of Christ. " 5 But on this subject, evil 
as Pusey thinks the doctrine of Rome, he considers the 
doctrine of Calvin and Zwingle a greater evil : " For," he 
says, " deeply as Rome has erred, and much error as she 
has thereby given occasion to in others, we fear that others 
have erred still more deeply. Not Zwingli alone, but Calvin, 

1 Pusey s Letter to the Bishop of Oxford, p. 58. 2 Ibid. p. 72. 

8 Ibid. p. 87. Ibid. p. 88. 6 Ibid. p. 131. 


have, in their way, so explainedthe mode of Christ s presence, 
as virtually to explain it away." l He asserts that Rome 
is " presumptuous " in teaching that " Christ is wholly 
contained under each species " ; and he rejects Rome s 
doctrine that " in the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, 
Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, is to be adored 
with the outward adoration of Divine worship." As to 
the Sacrament, as a whole, he writes : " Rome, in this 
respect, has the truth, though mingled with error, and 
clouded and injured by it ; the Zwingli-Calvinist school 
have forfeited it." 3 It is evident that much as Dr. Pusey 
might dislike certain portions of the Roman Catholic 
religion, he would even as far back as 1840 greatly 
prefer being a Romanist to being an " Ultra- Protestant." 
As to Prayers for the Dead, he considers it "a solemn 
privilege to the mourner ; but not, after that (in con 
sequence of abuses connected with it in the Romish 
system) it had been withdrawn from our Church, to 
be rashly and indiscriminately revived " ; 4 and yet al 
though the Church, "for the safety of her children, has 
relinquished the practice, her doctrine is in accordance 
with it." 6 

Now it must be said of this Letter of Dr. Pusey that it 
exactly proves what it was ostensibly written to disprove, 
viz., that he and his party were labouring to bring back 
into the Church of England a certain amount of Popery, 
though not, of course, all of it. Pusey s views, as herein 
expressed, of private judgment in the interpretation of 
Scripture, of Tradition, of the infallibility of the Church 
and of General Councils, of Justification by faith only, 
of Baptismal Regeneration, the Real Presence, and Prayers 
for the Dead, were, and are, in the estimation of ninety- 
nine out of every hundred Protestant Churchmen, distinctly 
Romish, and tend to Romanism by creating a thirst for 
that sacerdotal form of religion \vhich the Church of 
Rome alone can fully satisfy. The set of quotations from 
Tractarian writings, published at the end of Pusey s pamph- 

1 Pusey s Letter to the Bishop of Oxford, p. 132. 2 Ibid. p. 134. 

3 Ibid. p. 144. 4 Ibid. p. 187. 5 Ibid. p. 189. 


let, only proved what at that time nobody denied that 
there were certain portions of the Roman system which 
they rejected. Protestant Churchmen could not see that 
Tractarians were justified in introducing many Roman 
Catholic doctrines, merely on the ground that they pro 
tested against other Roman doctrines. 

In this Letter Pusey referred to a judgment of Sir 
Herbert Jenner Fust, in the case of Breeks v. Woolfrey, 
delivered in 1839, in the Court of Arches. The question 
before the Court was not whether Prayers for the Dead 
could be lawfully and publicly used in a parish church, 
but whether it were lawful to inscribe on a tombstone in a 
parish churchyard the following words : " Pray for the 
soul of ]. Woolfrey;" and "It is- a holy and wholesome 
thought to pray for the dead. 2 Mac. xii. 46." The 
tombstone containing these words had actually been set 
up in Carisbrooke Churchyard, Isle of Wight, by a Roman 
Catholic lady, Mrs. Woolfrey, widow of the person there 
buried. The Rev. J. Breeks, vicar of Carisbrooke, entered 
an action against Mrs. Woolfrey, praying the Court of 
Arches to compel her to remove the stone. The judge 
held that if " prayers for the dead necessarily constitute a 
part of the doctrine of Purgatory, as held by the Romish 
Church," then " the Court would be bound to monish the 
party to remove the stone, and to punish her with ecclesi 
astical censure and with costs." He said that the authori 
ties cited in the case " seem to go no further than this 
to show that the Church discouraged prayers for the dead, but 
did not prohibit them ; and that the Twenty-second Article 
is not violated by the use of such prayers." Here I may 
remark that it seems incredible that the Church should 
" discourage " such prayers if she thought them good 
and holy. The learned judge quoted the Homilies of 
the Church of England on prayers for the dead, and 
said that they " contained the same disapproval of the 
practice, but no positive prohibition of it." The ques 
tion may here be asked, how can that Church be sup 
posed to tolerate a practice of which she has expressed 
her "disapproval " ? The passages in the Homilies to which 


the judge referred are found in the Homily Concerning Prayer, 
Part III.: 

" Now," says the Homily^ " to entreat of that question, whether 
we ought to pray for them that are departed out of this world, or no. 
Wherein, if we cleave only unto the Word of God, then must we 
needs grant, that we have no commandment so to do. For the Scrip 
ture doth acknowledge but two places after this life ; the one proper 
to the elect and blessed of God, the other to the reprobate and 
damned souls ; as may be well gathered by the parable of Lazarus 
and the rich man. , . . These words, as they confound the opinion of 
helping the dead by prayer, so do they clean confute and take away 
the vain error of Purgatory." 

" Let these and such other places be sufficient to take away the 
gross error of Purgatory out of our heads ; neither let us dream any 
more, that the souls of the dead are anything at all holpen by our 
prayers ; but, as the Scripture teacheth us, let us think that the soul 
of man, passing out of the body, goeth straightways either to heaven, 
or else to hell, whereof the one needeth no prayer, the other is without 

No one can read this Homily without perceiving that 
the Church of England is most anxious that her children 
should not pray for the dead. The judge could not quote 
even one statement of the Church positively in favour of 
such prayers, and yet he concluded his judgment in these 
words : 

"I am, then, of opinion, on the whole of the case, that the 
offence imputed by the articles has not been sustained ; that no 
authority or canon has been pointed out by which the practice of 
praying for the dead has been expressly prohibited ; and I am 
accordingly of opinion, that, if the articles were proved, the facts 
would not subject the party to ecclesiastical censure, as far as regards 
the illegality of the inscription on the tombstone." 1 

In connection with this tombstone case it is well to 
remember that the judgment was that of an inferior court, 
and that it has never been appealed against. Had there 
then been an appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy 

1 Judgments of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Ecclesiastical 
Cases. Edited by the Hon. George C. Brodrick, and the Rev. William H. 
Freemantle, pp. 354-360. London : 1865. 


Council, I have no doubt that the judgment of Sir Herbert 
Jenner Fust would have been reversed. As it is, however, 
it must be accepted as an exposition of the law until it has 
been reversed by the Highest Court of Appeal. But let 
it not be forgotten that it sanctions only a request for 
prayer for the dead when inscribed on a tombstone, in a 
churchyard, and not on a tombstone set up within a parish 
church. It does not sanction public prayers for the dead 
in a parish church : these are manifestly illegal, since 
there are no such prayers provided in the Book of Common 
Prayer, and the clergy are pledged to use only in public 
prayer and administration of the Sacraments, " the form 
in the said Book prescribed, and none other, except so far 
as shall be ordered by lawful authority." ] I regret the 
judgment, but it is well to point out that its powers for 
evil are not so great as is generally supposed. 

On this subject there is this further fact, which is worthy 
of consideration. It has been decided that prayers for the 
dead are, according to the law of England, superstitious in 
their character, and that it is unlawful to leave money by 
will to priests, for the purpose of obtaining their prayers 
for the dead. In 1835, Sir Charles Pepys gave judgment 
in the case of West v. Shuttleworth. In this case the will 
of a lady was considered, by which she left .10 each to 
several Roman Catholic priests, for the benefit of their 
prayers for the repose of her soul, and that of her deceased 
husband. The judge said : 

" Taking the first gift to priests and chapels in connection with 
the letter, there can be no doubt that the sums given to the priests 
and chapels were not intended for the benefit of the priests per 
sonally, or for the support of the chapels for general purposes, but 
that they were given, as expressed in the letter, for the benefit of their 
prayers for the repose of the testatrix s soul and that of her deceased 
husband; and the question is, whether such legacies can be sup 
ported. It is truly observed by Sir William Grant, in Gary v. Abbot 
(7 Ves. 490) that there was no statute, making superstitious uses 
void generally, and that the statute of Edward VI. related only to 

1 The Ecclesiastical Law of the Church of England. By Sir Robert Phillimore, 
p. 4/0, edition 1873. 


superstitious uses of a particular description then existing ; and it is 
to be observed, that that statute does not declare such gifts to be 
unlawful, but avoids certain superstitious gifts previously created. 
The legacies in question, therefore, are not within the terms of the 
statute of Edward VI., but that statute has been considered as estab 
lishing the illegality of certain gifts, and amongst others the giving 
legacies to priests to pray for the soul of the donor has, in many cases 
collected in Duke (p. 466) been decided to be within the supersti 
tious uses intended to be suppressed by that statute. / am, therefore, 
of opinion that these legacies to priests and chapels are void. 1 : 

The question of the lawfulness of Prayers for the 
Dead, as affected by the case of Breeks v. Woolfrey, was 
discussed by the Solicitors Journal of January 16, 1875. 
Its opinion is worth citing here. It said : 

" Canon Liddon stated last week, in a letter to the Times, that 
prayers for the dead have been expressly declared legal in the 
Church of England. We presume that this assertion is founded 
upon Sir H. Jenner Fust s decision in Breeks v. Woolfrey ; but that 
case certainly does not settle the law upon the question. It was 
there held that an inscription on a tombstone in Carisbrooke church 
yard begging for prayers for the soul of the deceased was lawful ; 
but, as Dr. Liddon would find if the experiment were tried, it is one 
thing to allow such an inscription to be placed on a monument in a 
churchyard, and quite another to allow prayers for the dead to be 
used during the services of the Church. To the latter case the now 
firmly-established and well-known principle that no omission from 
or addition to the prescribed form can be permitted is applicable 
(see Westerton v. Liddell, Moore s Report ). Moreover, prayers 
for the dead were, it must be remembered, included in the First 
Prayer Book of Edward VI., and are excluded from the present 
book, and would, therefore, now be illegal upon the principle on 
which the mixed chalice, which was ordered by the former Prayer 
Book, and not ordered in the latter, has already been pronounced 
illegal. The mistake into which Dr. Liddon has fallen is a very 
natural one for a writer unacquainted with the legal effect of the 
more recent decisions in our Ecclesiastical Courts. But any 
advocate who should attempt to justify prayers for the dead in the 
Church service on the authority of Breeks v. Woolfrey would find 
he had undertaken a hopeless task." 

1 The Statutes Relating to Ecclesiastical Institutions. By Archibald John 
Stephens, vol. ii. p. 1508, 2nd edition. 


The case of Egerton v. All of Rode has an important 
bearing on the question of Prayers for the Dead. In the 
Consistory Court of Chester, October 26, 1893, before 
Chancellor Espin, a faculty was applied for by the Rev. 
John M. Egerton, Rector of Old Rode, to erect in the 
Parish Church a stained glass window, with the following 
inscription on a brass plate beneath it : " De caritate tua 
ora pro anima Henriettas Franciscae viduae Georgii Ha- 
merton Crump de Chorlton Hall in hoc comitatu mortua 
die xxiii. Augusti A.D. MDCCCXCII. aetatis suae LXXV. 
Et pro anima Johannis Hamerton Crump supradictorum 
filii majoris mortui die H. Martii A.D. MDCCCLXXXVII. 
aetatis suae xxxm." In giving judgment the Chancellor 
said : 

"When the proposed inscription was brought before the Court 
on September 28 last, I referred to the well-known case of The 
Office of the Judge Promoted by B reeks v. Woolfrey, and did so on 
the spur of the moment, not having seen the proposed inscription 
until just before the Court opened. But on consideration it may be 
doubted whether that case and the judgment in it would have 
warranted the Court in sanctioning the proposed inscription being 
placed in the Church of All Saints at Old Rode. The case of Breeks 
v. Woolfrey is a leading case, and the judgment in it is a considered 
judgment delivered by Sir Herbert Jenner Fust. But then he did 
not directly sanction the inscription before him, he only refused to order 
the tombstone which bore it to be removed. It does not appear that he 
would himself have authorised the inscription if he had been asked to 
do so. 

" Then again it might be argued that the proposed Latin inscrip 
tion in this case, the translation of the portion of which material to 
the present question is as follows : { Of your charity pray for the 

soul of H F , widow of George Hamerton Crump, of 

Chorlton Hall, in this county, deceased . . . and for the soul of 
John Hamerton Crump, . . . son of the above, deceased . . . goes 
somewhat beyond the inscription placed on the tomb of Mr. Woolfrey 
in the Churchyard of Carisbrooke. So far as material the latter ran 
thus : * Spes mea Christus. Pray for the soul of J. Woolfrey. It 
is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead. 2 Macabees, 
xii. 46. 

" It might reasonably be said perhaps that in principle the pro 
posed inscription in this case does not differ from the inscription in 



Breeks v. Woolfrey. Still the one submitted to this Court does 
seem to go beyond the one which in Breeks v. Woolfrey the Dean 
of Arches refused to displace, and this Court ought in my opinion to 
govern itself in such a matter somewhat strictly by the decisions and 
precedents furnished by the Court of Arches. . . . 

" Prayers for the Dead are unquestionably associated in the 
popular mind with the later exaggerations referred to in that [22nd] 
Article, and it may be added that a bequest made for such prayers 
being offered up would be void by the common law of the realm as 
superstitious. And, therefore, though in private such prayers may 
be offered, as conformable to the ways of the Primitive Church, cer 
tainly from the second century and downwards ; and however deeply 
we may sympathise with sentiments of affectionate respect in the 
bereaved, fired as they often are by strong realising of the Com 
munion of Saints, it does not seem to belong to a Court of first 
instance to do what the formularies of the Church have abstained 
from doing ; it is not for me here to authorise directly the setting up 
in a place of public worship of an inscription demanding the prayers 
of the worshippers for the souls of certain persons who have departed 
this life. 

" In the result I must decline to sanction the inscription brought 
in on September 28 last, being placed in the Church, and accord 
ingly so much of the application before me as prays that a faculty 
might be granted for placing such inscription beneath the proposed 
window must be rejected." 1 

Another faculty case, in which the question of Prayers 
for the Dead was involved, was decided just as I was about 
to finish the writing of this book. At a sitting of the 
Consistory Court of the Diocese of Carlisle, on August 29, 
1900, before Chancellor Prescott, D.D., the Vicar and 
Churchwardens of Moresby applied for leave to affix on 
the north wall of the said church an ancient memorial 
brass taken from the north wall of the chancel of the old 
church, where it had been placed by Thomas Fletcher in 
memory of his father, Sir William Fletcher, who died in 
1703. The brass tablet was said to have been lost in 
1840, but was recovered by the late Mr. W. Fletcher from 
Distington Museum. It bears the following inscription : 
" Depositum hie jacet in spe futurae resurrectionis corpus 
Gulielmi Fletcher ar : Nuper Dom. hujus mannerii qui 

1 The Law Reports. Probate Division, 1894, pp. 16, 17, 22. 


obiit 2do die Martii, Anno Domini, 1703, aetatis suae 58. 
Cujus animae propitietur Deus. Requiem aeternam dona 
ei Domine et lux perpetua luceat ei. Requiescat in pace. 
Amen. Thomas Fletcher, ar. filius ejus hoc fieri fecit." 
The Chancellor, in delivering judgment, said : 

"There could be no possible objection to a faculty issuing as desired, 
all the regulations having been observed, and it being the wish of the 
parishioners that it should be done. The memorial tablet which it was 
proposed to put up raised a very important question. When he came 
to look at it he found that this tablet was on what was called the old 
church, and had been apparently lost and then found in a museum, and 
it was now proposed to put it into the new church, it being a memorial 
tablet to one of the Fletcher family. The inscription on the tablet 
was in Latin, and there were two expressions in it which called for 
some remark. One of them was Requiem aeternam dona ei 
Domine et lux perpetua luceat, and the other was * Requiescat in 
pace. Amen. Some persons would call these expressions prayers 
for the dead ; other persons might call them simply the expressions 
of a pious wish on the part of the friends of the deceased. In any 
case, these two expressions occurred in the old service-books of the 
Church of England, the old Sarum books, in the obsequies for the 
dead. There the first of the expressions was the verse or refrain 
which occurred over and over again, and the other expression was 
the final words of the Service for the Burial of the Dead. If this 
were an application for a faculty for a new memorial tablet, or new 
monument to be put up in this church, there might be circumstances 
which would lead the Court to pause a good deal before granting 
the faculty. ... If there was anything in this inscription contrary 
to the doctrine or the laws of the Church, this Court would be bound 
not to grant the faculty ; but he did not think there was anything 
here contrary to the doctrine or the laws of the Church of England. 
Whether in later days people were more afraid of superstition with 
regard to these prayers for the dead than they were about that period 
at the end of the seventeenth century he was not prepared to say, 
but, at all events, this proposition was simply to take a memorial 
tablet which had been in a sacred place, and to place it, not in a 
secular place like a museum, but in a sacred position in the church. 
He understood that it was the wish of the family of Fletcher, as 
well as the expressed wish of the parishioners in Vestry, that this 
tablet should be placed in the new church. He saw no objection to 
it, and though it was undoubtedly an important question, and, as he 
had said, one which if it came before the Court in a different form 


and under different circumstances might call for a different decision, 
he had no hesitation in decreeing that the faculty shall issue for the 
memorial tablet to be placed in the position as requested in the 
petition." 1 

In his Letter to the Bishop of Oxford, first issued in 1839, 
Dr. Pusey dealt with the subject of sins committed after 
Baptism, but never recommended Auricular Confession as 
a remedy. This silence, no doubt, was in accordance with 
the Tractarian doctrine of " Reserve in Communicating 
Religious Knowledge." 5 At that early period it would 
never have done to have recommended Auricular Confes 
sion publicly, above all in a pamphlet written to refute the 
charge of Romanising tendencies. Yet, from statements 
subsequently made by Pusey himself, we learn that he 
commenced the practice of hearing Confessions in i838. 3 
From that date down to the time of his death he was one 
of the most active of his party in labours as a Father 
Confessor. Yet, strange as it may seem to many, although 
one of the foremost in urging others to practise Auricular 
Confession, he never went to Confession himself until 
about eight years after he commenced to practise as a 
Father Confessor. In 1844 he wrote to Keble : " I am so 
shocked at myself, that I dare not lay my wounds bare to 
any one ; since I have seen the benefit of Confession to 
others, I have looked round whether I could unburthen 
myself to any one, but there is a reason against every one. 
I dare not so shock people ; and so I go on, having no 
such comfort as in good Bp. Andrewes words, to confess 
myself < an unclean worm, a dead dog, a putrid corpse. " 
He waited for more than two years after writing this 

1 Record, September 7> 1900, p. 856. 

z The Rev. John Thomas, writing to the future* Lord Selborne, in 1843, a f ter 
mentioning that he had met the Rev. Frederick Faber at Rome, proceeds: 
" This reminds me of the Tract theology. I think you draw too much distinction 
between the views of the outposts of that school and those of its leaders. I appre 
hend the only difference to be, that the leaders have the prudence to defer the down 
right avowal of extreme opinions until things are better prepared for their reception. 
I never read a writing of Newman in the Tracts, in which he did not appear to 
me to insinuate, I could carry the principle much further, but you cannot bear 
it now. " Memorials , Family and Personal, 1766-1865, vol. i. p. 387. 

3 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. iii. pp. 269, 335. Times, November 29, 1866. 

4 Ibid. p. 96. 


before he could muster up courage to go to Confession ; 
at last, on December i, 1846, he made his first Confession 
to Keble at Hursley. 1 

And here comes in a strange fact. Four years after 
Pusey had commenced to hear Confessions, he wrote a 
learned treatise, in the form of a lengthy note to the 
works of Tertullian, in the Library of the Fathers, to prove 
that in the early history of the Christian Church there is 
not to be found the slightest trace of private Confession 
to priests, and that " if a Church have laid it aside, there 
is no ground for misgiving, as though it had parted with 
anything essential to the benefits of absolution." 2 But 
he adds that " it does not follow that because it was not 
practised in the early Church, it may not be a salutary check 
in the degraded state in which the Church now is " ; thus 
giving to Auricular Confession a purely ecclesiastical and 
human origin and not any divine authority. It was of 
man, not of God. From what Pusey has to say about 
the early Church and Confession of sin to God only, I take 
the following extracts which, though lengthy, are well 
worthy of careful study, as proving conclusively that the 
Primitive Church was thoroughly Protestant on this great 
and most important subject : 

11 S. Chrysostome also in the passages cited [by Romanists] to prove 
private Confession, sheivs that the sins of the people were unknown to the 
priests. But besides these, there is other distinct evidence that Con 
fession was not regarded as essential to remission. This is chiefly 
furnished by S. Chrysostome, who yet, as alleged by Bellarmine, 
recommends public penitence, and himself enforced it ; still he most 
distinctly alleges that Confession to God suffices for forgiveness, and 
this so repeatedly, and so strongly, as to leave no question as to his 
meaning. Certainly no words could be used, which should exclude 
any other meaning, if his do not. Thus he says : . . . Confess 
to God alone thy sins ; " against Thee only have I sinned, and done 
evil before Thee," and thy sin is forgiven. . . . This language he 
uses in other places as even with reference to grievous sins, 
fornication or adultery, if he [the sinner] will converse alone with 
Him, no one knowing, and will utter everything accurately, he shall 

1 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. iii. p. 103. 

2 Library of the Fathers: Tertullian, p. 407. Oxford : 1842. 


soon repair his offences ; and putting the words in the very mouth 
of God, I compel thee not, He saith, to come into the midst of a 
theatre, surrounded by many witnesses. Tell Me alone thy sin apart, 
that I may heal the sore, and free from the pain. Again, in a 
passage remarkable for acknowledging what Romanists seem to 
forget, that there is shame in confessing sin at all, even though man 
be not by, if any but realise what his defilements are, and how holy 
God is : * But thou art ashamed and blushest to utter thy sins, nay, 
but even were it necessary to utter these things before men and 
display them, not even thus shouldst thou be ashamed (for sin, not 
to confess sin, is shame), but now it is not even necessary to confess 
before witnesses. Be the examination of transgressions in the 
thoughts of conscience. Be the judgment seat unwitnessed. Let 
God alone see thee confessing . . . Again, in the same contrast with 
a theatre and witnesses, he says: Within, in the conscience, none 
being present except the All-seeing God, enter into judgment and 
examination of sins . . . For why art thou ashamed and 
blushest to tell thy sins ? Tellest thou them to man, that he may 
reproach thee? Confessest thou to thy fellow-servant, that he may 
make a show of thee ? Thou showest the ivound to the Lord, who 
careth for thee, The Friend, The Physician . . . I do not bring 
thee into any theatre of thy fellow-servants, nor compel thee to 
reveal thy sins to men ; unfold thy conscience to God, and of Him ask 
the remedies. . . . 

"There could," continues Dr. Pusey, "if Romanists would fairly 
consider this, be no way in which Confession to God alone, exclusive 
of man, could be expressed, if not here. S. Chrysostome says, to 
God alone, apart in private, 7 to Him who knoweth beforehand, 
no one knowing, no one present save Him who knoweth, God 
alone seeing, unwitnessed, not to man, not to a fellow-servant/ 
within, in the conscience, in the memory, judging thyself 
(in lieu of the priest being the judge)." J 

"The instances, then, being in each case very numerous, the 
absence of any mention of Confession in the early Church under the 
following circumstances does, when contrasted with the uniform 
mention of it in the later, put beyond question that at the earlier period 
it was not the received practice. The evidence is given at great length 
by Daille. (i) Secret confession has, among the modern Latins, a 
chief place in the religious acts of all the faithful; clergy, monks, 
lay ; princes, private persons ; nobles, people ; men and women ; 
but nowhere in the Ancient Church (D. iv. 3); especially at the 
close of life, as a bounden duty, it is universal among the moderns, 

1 Library of the Fathers : Tertullian, pp. 398-401. 


unknown among the ancient s y (ibid. c. 5) . . . and certainly the 
details are given so fully, that it is inconceivable that the practice 
of Confession should have been so uniformly mentioned with 
praise in the later, and WHOLLY OMITTED in the earlier Church, 
had the practice of the earlier been the same as that of the later." x 

Now, I may well ask here, could any one who first 
read this splendid defence of the Protestant position with 
reference to Auricular Confession, have imagined that its 
author was at the very period when he wrote hearing 
Confessions himself ? Pusey s treatise, no doubt, tended 
to blind the eyes of Protestant Churchmen as to what was 
going on, and to put them off their guard. Who could 
then have thought it possible that, within a very few years 
after writing this, Pusey would himself have adopted the 
full Roman Catholic theory and practice of the Sacrament 
of Penance ? In later life, Pusey never attempted, so far 
as I am aware, to refute the splendid Protestant arguments 
against Auricular Confession which he brought forward 
in his notes to the works of Tertullian. 

The Tractarian Movement continued to make rapid 
progress, greater indeed than its founders had ever anti 
cipated. Young clergymen, filled with High Church 
ideas, went down from Oxford to their various curacies 
throughout the length and breadth of the land, and helped 
to propagate Tractarian views by preaching and private 
conversation, and especially by assisting in the circulation 
of each new number of the Tracts for the Times as it came 
out. These were read, not only in Rectories and Vicar 
ages, but also in the Halls of county noblemen and squires. 
There was a delightful novelty about this new system of 
religion which pleased and attracted the young, and need 
less to add, it was very dear to the hearts of the priest 
hood. It was found peculiarly suited to the spiritual 
tastes of those who wished to have a high opinion of 
human merit in the sight of God ; and it was soon found, 
by experience, that it was not inconsistent with a con 
siderable amount of worldliness. Before long the news 
papers began to discuss the work going on in Oxford, and 

1 Library of the Fathers: Tertullian^ pp. 405, 406. 


it was even mentioned in Parliament. Publicity is every 
thing for a new cause, and this the Tractarians soon got 
in abundance. It was not long before they became 
famous in the United States, and in several of our 
Colonies. I believe that this success was mainly due 
to the Tracts for the Times, though I do not by any means 
undervalue the effect of the personal influence of the 
leaders at Oxford. As years passed on these Tracts became 
more and more Romish in their character, and filled the 
hearts of the rulers of the Church of Rome with joy and 
hope. Wiseman was by no means slow to realise that, 
to a considerable extent, the Tractarians were doing his 
work, and doing it better than he could ever hope to do 
it. In the Dublin Review for April 1838, he reviewed the 
first three volumes of the Tracts for the Times, of whose 
authors he asked, " Will they succeed in their work ? " 
To which his answer was : " We firmly believe they 
will ; nay, strange to say, we hope so." ] lt The spiritual 
and devotional character of the Catholic worship and 
religion is," wrote Wiseman, 2 "openly avowed" in the 
Tracts for the Times; and in proof of this he cites the 
following statement to be found at page 4 of Tract LXXL, 
written by Newman, and published January i, 1836. 

" The same feelings which carry men now to Dissent will carry 
them to Romanism novelty being an essential stimulant of popular 
devotion ; and the Roman system, to say nothing of the intrinsic 
majesty and truth which remain in it amid its corruptions, abound 
ing in this and other stimulants of a most potent and effective 
character. And further, there will ever be a number of refined and 
affectionate minds, who, disappointed in finding full matter for their 
devotional feelings in the English system, as at present conducted, 
betake themselves, through human frailty, to Rome." 

On this statement of Newman s, Wiseman s comment 
was logical and just. " We have here," he said (including 
in his remarks the other Tracts for the Times), " a clear 
confession that, upon a dozen points, affecting nothing 

1 Wiseman s Essays on Various Subjects, vol. ii. p. 29. 

2 Ibid. p. 56. 


less than the constitution of the Church, and the autho 
rity of its hierarchy, the grounds upon which the most 
solemn dogmas rest, the public offices of the Church, 
the frequent use of the Eucharistic sacrament, the per 
formance of daily service, the observance of fasting, and 
other great moral precepts, the Anglican Church, under 
the mask of a Reformation, contrived to place things in a 
worse state than they were before, and than they now exist in the 
Catholic Church." ] And here it may be useful to give some 
other quotations from the Tracts for the Times which 
manifest their Romeward tendencies, omitting for the 
present any reference to Tract XC. to be dealt with later 
on : 

"With these [Foreign Reformers] and the like men Cranmer 
was surrounded, and paid much deference to them, as a man of no 
decision is wont to do to those who are bent upon carrying a point. 
It was probably a fruit of this influence, that there came out from 
the Council in 1550 an ill-omened letter ; signed by seven laymen, 
but by one Bishop only (Ely) besides the Archbishop, commanding 
the attars to be taken down, and tables to be placed in their room." 2 

" Again, from the Prayer for the Church militant we have 
excluded the more solemn commendation to God, and Prayer for 
the Dead ; this is a moving thought, for may we not venture to 
consider it in this light, that we are by this exclusion, as it were, in 
some degree disunited from the purer communion of those departed 
Saints who are now with Christ, as if scarce worthy to profess 
ourselves one with them. " 3 

" In speaking of the Rubric, the substitution of the term Table, 
Holy Table, and in the Scotch of l God s Board, for that of Altar, 
which is in Edward s First Book (as well as * God s Board ), is a 
strong instance of this our judicial humiliation." 4 

"There is another circumstance now to be observed, of more 
importance than any which have been hitherto considered, the 
entire omission of the use of oil at Baptism and Confirmation. . . . 
When we consider these things, surely no one can say [sic. ? deny] 
the greatness of the gifts which are here withdrawn ; how much we 
have thereby fallen from the high appellations of a royal priesthood, 

1 Wiseman s Essays on Various Subjects, vol. ii. pp. 56, 57. 

2 Tract LXXXL p. 16. By Dr. Pusey. 

3 Tract LXXXVI. p. 21. By the Rev. Isaac Williams. 4 Ibid. p. 26. 


a holy nation, a peculiar people : and we have together with it lost 
the white robe of Baptism." l 

" In all these things, 2 we have no reason surely to complain of 
the judicial withholding of privileges, but to lament our unfitness to 
receive them ; the fact is our * iniquities have separated between us 
and our God. Our sins have withholden good things from us. 
The essentials of a Church we have by many merciful interpositions 
still preserved to us ; they are only matters denoting the highest 
privileges ; royal gifts, that are withdrawn" 3 

No one who reads these last quotations can fail to see 
how dissatisfied the early Tractarians were with the Prayer 
Book as it is, and how heartily they would have welcomed 
Prayer Book Revision, provided it were on Tractarian 
lines. The only Revision to which the Ritualists now 
object is one on Protestant lines. 

In the year 1839 an attempt was commenced to 
influence the wealthy residents of the West End of 
London in favour of Tractarianism. The Rev. Frederick 
Oakeley, one of the most zealous and extreme of his 
party, was in that year appointed to the charge of 
Margaret Chapel, near Cavendish Square, in which, as 
he subsequently said, he sought " an opportunity of trying 
the effect of Tractarian principles upon a practical scale." 
In a lecture delivered in London in 1855, when he had 
become a Roman Catholic priest, Mr. Oakeley told his 
hearers how he began his work in Margaret Chapel : 

"Pulpit and reading desk," he said, "were moved from their 
former position ; and the poor clerk reluctantly took his place in 
the body of the chapel, although he never succeeded to the last in 
bringing his Amen into proper tone of subordination. The 
communion table, now dignified with the name of an altar, exhibited 
its crimson frontal, its cross, and its candlesticks, whose unlighted 
candles were standing memorials of Episcopal inflexibility, and 
emblems of patient hope. Not indeed that they were always un 
lighted ; for there came periodically the succession of night to day, 

1 Tract LXXXVL pp. 27, 29. 

2 That is, in the removal from the Prayer Book of Prayers for the Dead, and 
the word "altar"; in the omission from it also of the anointing in Baptism 
and Confirmation, and the removal of the " anointing of the sick." 

3 Tract LXXXVL pp. 30, 31. 


and at times the elements favoured us with a propitious fog. All 
this, my friends, must sound to you as something inexpressibly absurd. 
Well, I cannot justify the unlighted candles, and still less, the inor 
dinate attachment to fogs. But, with the exception of a few such 
trifling extravagances, the whole thing, I assure you, had an earnest 
ness and reality about it ; as has been proved, I think you will admit, 
by its (then most unthought of) results. Margaret Chapel has yielded 
some scores of converts to the Catholic Church, including four of 
its successive Ministers; and this, although it never aimed at 
anything but to promote the cause of the Church of England. It 
continued to do its work long after I quitted it, and has now merged 
into one of the most magnificent Churches in England, 1 which I 
have no doubt will do its work also." 2 

From the biography of Mr. Serjeant Bellasis, who 
was from the first one of Mr. Oakeley s warmest supporters 
at Margaret Chapel (and who subsequently seceded to 
Rome) we learn that " the altar was raised " by the new 
Incumbent, who at once " commenced intoning parts of 
the service more after Cathedral fashion." 3 All through 
Oakeley s troubles while at Margaret Chapel, Serjeant 
Bellasis was his warmest friend and disciple. How far 
the Serjeant had gone towards Popery, even seven years 
before he actually joined the Church of Rome, may be 
seen in the following extract from a letter he wrote to a 
friend on March 31, 1843: "You know my opinion 
about the Pope. I think he is the Head of the Christian 
Church, and that Henry VIII. committed a great sin in 
throwing off the Pope s authority and assuming it himself, 
and I wish that authority were restored." 4 Six months 
later Bellasis visited Oxford, and there, amongst the 
Tractarians (as he wrote from there on September 25, 
1843): "I find a universal acquiescence in the Council of 
Trent, as being the only basis upon which an ultimate 
reunion will be effected, and a universal admission that the 
notion of independent national Churches is absurd, and that the 
authority of a Supreme Patriarch is far, very far prefer- 

1 All Saints, Margaret Street, W. 

2 Personal Reminiscences of the Oxford Movement. A Lecture by Frederick 
Oakeley, M.A., p. I r. London: 1855. 

3 Memorials of Mr. Serjeant Bellasis, p. 35. 

4 Ibid. p. 39. 


able, to the slavery of the Church to an almost heathen 
state." 1 

Mr. Oakeley s labours at the Margaret Chapel were 
soon rewarded with a considerable measure of success. 
He gathered round him an influential congregation, in 
cluding many members of the aristocracy, and not a few 
of those who held high official positions, amongst the 
latter being Mr. Gladstone, the future Prime Minister, 2 
who remained an intimate friend of Mr. Oakeley s until 
his death. Of Margaret Chapel Mr. Gladstone once 
said : " The whole place was so filled by the reverence 
of Oakeley s ministrations and manner, that its bareness 
and poverty passed unnoticed. His sermons were always 
most admirable ; they never exceeded twenty minutes." J 
The result was the accession to the ranks of the Tractarians 
of many perverts of considerable influence in the upper 
ranks of society. The affairs of the Chapel, under 
Oakeley s ministrations, appear to have gone on pros 
perously for several years. Complaints from Protestant 
Churchmen were heard from time to time, but nothing 
in the nature of really serious opposition was met with 
until early in the year 1845. On February i4th of that 
year the Rev. W. G. Ward was deprived of his degrees by 
the Convocation of the University of Oxford for having, 
amongst other offences, affirmed in his book, The Ideal of 
a Christian Church, that, in subscribing the Thirty-Nine 
Articles, he " renounced no one Roman doctrine." On 
the very day that Ward was thus degraded, Oakeley wrote 
a letter to the Vice-Chancellor calling his attention to the 
fact that, six weeks previously, he had sent to him a copy 
of a pamphlet which he (Oakeley) had written, and in 
which occurred the following passage : " I claim the 
right, which has been already asserted in another quarter, 
of holding (as distinct from teaching) all Roman doctrine, 
and that notwithstanding my subscription to the Thirty- 
Nine Articles." 4 

1 Memorials of Mr. Serjeant Bellasis, p. 66, note. 

2 Purcell s Life of Cardinal Manning, vol. i. p. 314. 3 Ibid. p. 314. 

4 The Subject of Tract XC. Historically Examined. By Frederick Oakeley, 
Fellow of Balliol College, Oxford, 2nd edition, p. xiii. Oakeley s pamphlet was 


Mr. Oakeley proceeded to state to the Vice-Chan 
cellor : " If I am allowed, after this plain and public 
declaration of my sentiments, to retain my place in the 
University, I shall regard such acquiescence as equivalent 
to an admission, on the part of the Academical authorities, 
that my own subscription to the Thirty-Nine Articles is 
not at variance with good faith. " The fact that Oakeley 
had written this letter came to the knowledge of the 
Bishop of London (Dr. Blomfield), who was so much put 
out about it that he immediately requested Oakeley to 
resign his Incumbency of Margaret Chapel. Oakeley s 
friends wrote to the Bishop in his favour, amongst them 
being Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Justice Coleridge. 2 While 
the decision was pending Oakeley wrote and published a 
letter to the Bishop of London, in the form of a pamph 
let, 3 which led his lordship to the decision to prosecute 
the offender in the Court of Arches. It was open to the 
Bishop to have withdrawn Oakeley s licence at once, but 
he thought it would seem fairer to proceed against him 
by a prosecution. This was the first prosecution brought 
against a member of the party to which Oakeley belonged, 
and it is not a little interesting to note that it was initiated 
by a Bishop, his secretary, Mr. Christopher Hodgson, 
being the nominal prosecutor. The case came on for 
hearing in the Arches Court, on June 9, 1845, before Sir 
Herbert Jenner Fust. 4 The portions of Oakeley s Letter 
to the Bishop of London objected against in the articles 
included the following passages : 

" I do not deny that it may naturally strike your lordship, as a 
gratuitous and disturbing movement. Nor, again, could I be sur- 

ably answered by the Rev. William Goode (afterwards Dean of Ripon) under the 
title of Tract XC. Historically Refuted, 2nd edition, pp. 191. London : Hatchard. 

1 Mr. Oakeley s letter to the Vice-Chancellor appears in full in the English 
Churchman, February 20, 1845, p. 121. 

2 Memorials of Mr. Serjeant Bellasis, p. 41. 

3 A Letter to the Bishop of London on a Subject Connected with the Recent 
Proceedings at Oxford. By the Rev. Frederick Oakeley, pp. 39. London : 

4 A verbatim copy of the articles brought against the defendant, together 
with a report of the trial, appears in the English Churchman, June 12, 1845, 
PP- 374-376. 


prised to hear that your lordship had been seriously startled by my 
further declaration of an opinion, that the Articles are subscribable in 
what may be called an ultra-Catholic sense, so as to involve no 
necessary renunciation on the subscriber s part, of any formal de 
cision of the Western Church, and that I myself, actually so 
subscribed them/ 3 1 

" And now I wish to draw your lordship s attention to the follow 
ing point. The distinction in question is, as I contend, wholly 
irrelevant to my question with the University, for, in the University, 
it is not the practice of teaching certain doctrines which is even 
apparently impugned, but the claim to hold them. Mr. Ward him 
self never claimed to teach Roman doctrine ; on the contrary, he urges 
over and over again that such a procedure would be highly wrong 
under our circumstances. What he maintains, and what the vote 
of Thursday seems to deny, is the honesty of subscribing the Articles 
in a certain sense. The University, then, cannot pretend to let me 
off on the ground of the above distinction ; for with respect to it I 
differ in no way from Mr. Ward, whom it has, by hypothesis, con 
demned. Mr. Ward does not claim to teach, /claim to hold. 

" But, with your lordship, I contend this distinction ought to, 
and will, receive consideration. Were I to be found teaching Roman 
doctrine in my public ministrations in your lordship s diocese, I 
should, as I feel, most deservedly expose myself to your lordship s 
censure. It is plain that your lordship, as a Bishop of our Church, 
could not, and would not, suffer it." 2 

At the hearing of the case in the Court of Arches 
Mr. Oakeley was undefended, but that, of course, was his 
own fault, since he does not seem to have pleaded any 
conscientious objections to recognising the Court of 
Arches. Sir Herbert Jenner Fust delivered his judgment 
in the case, on June 30, 1845 : 

" The learned judge had no doubt that the promoters of the 
office had sufficiently proved the articles, and that Mr. Oakeley had 
advisedly maintained and affirmed doctrines directly contrary and 
repugnant to those of the Church of England, so as to render him 
self liable to ecclesiastical censure. If the proceeding had been 
under the statute of Elizabeth, he must, in the first instance, have 
been called upon to retract his error, and if he refused, be deprived 
of his preferment; but, as the proceeding was under the general 

1 Oakeley s Letter to the Bishop of London > p. n. 

2 Ibid. pp. 12, 13. 


law, the punishment was left to the discretion of the Court, accord 
ing to the exigency of the offence. 

"What the amount of that punishment should be he had now 
to consider, and in that consideration he must bear in mind the 
necessity of inflicting such a punishment as would prevent others 
from falling into those errors of which Mr. Oakeley was guilty. He 
believed that the Court would not go beyon4 the justice of the case 
if it revoked the licence of Mr. Oakeley to officiate in Margaret 
Chapel, or elsewhere in the Diocese of London, and if it prohibited 
him from performing any ministerial offices within the Province of 
Canterbury until he retracted his errors. He should also condemn 
Mr. Oakeley in the cost of these proceedings. 1 

The Church of England is much indebted to Bishop 
Blomfield for the courageous and faithful attitude he 
assumed towards Mr. Oakeley. The Bishop was not an 
Evangelical, but rather an old-fashioned High Churchman, 
yet he could not fail to see a grave danger to the Church 
in allowing a man like Oakeley to flaunt his defiant 
Popery in the face of her rulers. The punishment in 
flicted upon the Minister of Margaret Chapel was severe, 
but it was thoroughly deserved, and it was effectual in 
preventing a repetition of the offence. Why is it, we may 
well ask, that the Bishops of the present generation have 
not the courage to imitate Bishop Blomfield s example ? 
What an unhappy exhibition of unfaithfulness on their 
part is revealed in the Archbishop of York s Advent Pas 
toral, issued in 1899. " It has been widely stated," said 
the Archbishop, " in various quarters, that the Bishops 
have determined to prosecute the nonconforming clergy. 
Such rumours are circulated, from whatever motive, with 
out the slightest authority. I do not believe that there is a 
single Bishop who would think of taking such a step, although, 
unquestionably, this lies within our power." 

Dr. Pusey was made very angry by Sir Herbert Jenner 
Fust s judgment. He wrote two long letters to the English 
Churchman finding fault with it, and urging that, because 
Mr. Oakeley was undefended, the judgment " has morally 
no force upon the conscience, as legally, none as a prece- 

1 English Churchman, July 3, 1845, p. 422. 


dent in law." 1 But here it may be asked what ecclesi 
astical judgment delivered since 1845 nas been considered 
by Pusey s followers to have any moral " force upon the 
conscience/ when it conflicted with their teaching and 
conduct ? In the very first case of a prosecution against 
a member of their party, this plea was set up, and against 
a Spiritual Court too ; and it has been set up in every 
other case tried since then. The plea set up by Dr. Pusey 
that a judgment has "morally no force upon the con 
science/ when the prosecuted one wilfully and inexcusably 
chooses not to defend himself, is simply absurd. If this 
plea were permitted in criminal courts every prisoner at 
the bar would escape punishment. And in this Margaret 
Chapel case Pusey set another bad example to his fol 
lowers which they were not slow to imitate. He imputed 
bad motives to the prosecution. He wrote : " When he 
(Oakeley) thought it right to give up his cause, he knew 
that he must be condemned ; and whether without any 
alleged grounds, simply by default, or in other courts, or 
upon wrong grounds, or on the real grounds, mattered not 
to him personally. In any case, he must be crushed, and then 
it matters not much to a person, why." : In defending 
Oakeley, Pusey was at the same time defending others 
who held the same ground. He was anxious to keep men 
holding this disloyal position within the English Church, 
and prevent them going over to Rome, their natural home. 
A few months later, Pusey wrote to Dr. Wilberforce, then 
Bishop- Elect of Oxford : 

" I did not mean to state anything definitely as to myself, but 
only to maintain, in the abstract, the tenability of a certain position, in 
which VERY MANY are, of not holding themselves obliged to renounce 
any doctrine, formally decreed by the Roman Church. And this 
I knew would satisfy many minds, who do not wish to form any 
definite opinion on those doctrines, yet still wish not to be obliged 
to commit themselves against them. But in this I was not speaking 
of what is commonly meant by Popery/ which is a large practical 
system, going beyond their formularies, varying, perhaps, indefinitely 

1 English Churchman, October 2, 1845, P- 62 7- 
8 Ibid. p. 627. 


in different minds. I mean simply the letter of what has been 
decreed by the Roman Church ; and this I have, for years, hoped 
might ultimately become the basis of union between us." x 

In this same letter Pusey showed to Wilberforce what 
some of these Romish doctrines were which English 
Churchmen might lawfully hold, and at the same time he 
revealed most clearly his intense longing for Corporate 
Reunion with Rome. " Practically/ he wrote, " when 
people come to me for guidance, I endeavour to withhold 
them from what lies beyond our Church, although, if asked 
on the other side, I could not deny that such and such 
things seem to me admissible. If I may explain my 
meaning, the remarkable Acts of S. Perpetua and Felicitas, 
which was beyond question genuine, contain a very solemn 
vision, which involves the doctrine of a process of purifica 
tion after death by suffering, to shorten which prayer was 
available . . . solemn as it was, I could not, taking all 
together, refuse my belief to an intermediate state of 
cleansing, in some cases through pain. . . . The effect has 
been that / have since been wholly silent about Purgatory (before 
I used to speak against it). I have not said as much as 
this except to two or three friends. Some of my nearest 
friends do not know of it." Here was undoubtedly a 
case in which Pusey acted on the doctrine of " Reserve in 
Communicating Religious Knowledge." And what are we 
to think of the tactics revealed in the following paragraph 
of the same letter ? " Practically then," said Pusey, " I 
dissuade or forbid (when I have authority) Invocation of 
Saints ; abstractedly, I see no reason why our Church 
might not eventually allow it, in the sense of asking for 
their prayers." To " dissuade or forbid " people practising 
that which he thought might be helpful, if introduced into 
the English Church, was not a consistent attitude for any 
Christian minister to assume. It was very much like 
double-faced conduct. And all this belief in Popery was 
to be tolerated in the English Church with a view to 
assisting its Reunion with Rome. " I cannot but think," 

1 Life of Bishop Wilberforce, vol. i. p. 303. 
8 Ibid. pp. 304, 305. 


wrote Pusey, in the same letter to Wilberforce, " that 
Rome and we are not irreconcilably at variance, but that, 
in the impending contest with unbelief, we shall be on the 
same side, and in God s time, and in His way, one." 

A few months after the judgment of Sir Herbert Jenner 
Fust, Mr. Oakeley seceded to the Church of Rome. Shortly 
before that event he wrote from Littlemore,on October 23rd, 
a letter for publication just a fortnight after Newman had 
announced his own secession in the same village in which 
he stated that he was about to join the Church of Rome, 
and in which he revealed the object he had in view while 
labouring as a clergyman in the Church of England : 
" To bring my own Church] he wrote, ll into the utmost pos 
sible sympathy and harmony with the Roman, while at the same 
time scrupulously observant of her own express directions, 
and of the injunctions of authority (as far as I could collect 
them), this, as you well know, was my idea of the truest loyalty 
towards the Church of England." 

1 A Letter On Submitting to the Catholic Church. By Frederick Oakeley, 
M.A., 2nd edition, p. 34. London : James Toovey. 1845. 


Tract XC. List of pamphlets on Tract XC. Newman s object in 
writing the Tract Extracts from it Rejoicings at Oscott The letter 
of the Four Tutors Dr. Arnold s opinion of the Tract Declaration 
by the Heads of Houses Interesting letter from one of the Four 
Tutors Newman s Letter to Dr. Jelf Wiseman s attitude towards 
the advanced Tractarians Ward s traitorous letter to the Univers 
An English Catholic s letter to Newman Wiseman s reply to 
Newman Mr. Ambrose Lisle Phillipps letter The Bishop of Ox 
ford s difficulties His correspondence with Pusey and Newman 
The Tracts for the Times discontinued Newman s Letter to the 
Bishop of Oxford Newman withdraws his "dirty words" against 
Rome His reasons for doing so The Rev. William George Ward 
Thinks the Reformers guilty of rebellion and perjury Mr. 
Percival s defence of the Tracts for the Times Keble s defence of 
Tract XC. His opinion on Canonical Obedience to the Bishops 
Pusey s defence of Tract XC. Manning s dislike for Tract XC. 
BricknelFs Judgment of the Bishops upon Tractarian Theology 
What the Bishops said against Tract XC. 

PROBABLY Newman never created a greater sensation in 
his life his secession to Rome excepted than when he 
wrote Tract XC. The number of pamphlets written on 
this one Tract alone, by friend and foe, was very large. I 
have not seen them all, but for the purpose of reference 
my readers may find useful the subjoined list of those in 
my possession. 1 

1 I. Trad XC. " Remarks on Certain Passages in the Thirty-Nine Articles," 
pp.83. London: Rivington. 1841. Reprinted, "With a Historical Preface 
by the Rev. E. B. Pusey, D.D." London : Parker. 1865. 

2. A Letter to the Rev. R. W.Jelf, D.D., In Explanation of No. 90. By the 
Author, pp. 31. Oxford: Parker. 1841. 

3. A Letter to the Bishop of Oxford On Occasion of Tract XC. By John 
Henry Newman, pp. 47. Oxford : Parker. 1841. 

4. The Articles Treated on in Tract XC. Reconsidered and their Interpretation 
Vindicated. In a Letter to the Rev. R. W. Jelf, D.D. By the Rev. E. B. Pusey, 
D.D., pp. 217. Oxford : Parker. 1841. 

5. A Letter to the Rev. E. B. Pusey, D.D., On the Piiblication of No. 90 of the 
Tracts for the Times. By William Sewell, M.A., Professor of Moral Philosophy, 
pp. 13. Oxford : Parker. 1841. 

6. Some Remarks on A Letter Addressed to the Rev. R. W.Jelf, D.D., in Ex- 



It was no new idea of Newman s to write a book about 
the Thirty-Nine Articles. He had considered the subject 
more than two years before the start of the Oxford Move 
ment. " I had," he wrote to the Rev. H. ]. Rose, on 
March 28, 1831, " considered a work on the Articles 
might be useful on the following plan : First, a defence of 
Articles ; then the history of our own. Then an explanation 

planation of No. 90. By Ambrose Lisle Phillipps, Esq., pp. 24. London : Charles 
Dolman. 1841. 

7. A Letter Respectfully Addressed to the Rev. J. H. Newman Upon Some 
Passages in his Letter to the Rev. Dr. Jelf. By N. Wiseman, D.D., Bishop of 
Melipotamus, pp. 32. London : Charles Dolman. 1841. 

8. A Letter to N. Wiseman, D.D., containing Remarks On his Letter to Mr. 
Newman. By the Rev. William Palmer, M.A., Worcester College, Oxford, 
pp. 49. Oxford : Parker. 1841. 

9. Strictures on No. 90 of the Tracts for the Times. By a Member of the 
University of Oxford. Part I. pp. 76. Oxford : J. Vincent. 

10. Strictures on A o. 90 of the Tracts for the Times. By a Member of the 
University of Oxford. Part II. pp. 95. Oxford : J. Vincent. 1841. 

11. Two Letters Concerning No. 90 in the Series called Tracts for the Times. 
Printed for Private Distribution Only, pp. 31. Oxford: Printed by W. Baxter. 

12. The Controversy between Tract XC. and the Oxford Tutors, pp. 32. 
London: How & Parsons. 1841. 

13. Brief Remarks upon No. 90, Second Edition, and some Subsequent Pub 
lications in Defence oj it. By the Rev. C. P. Golightly, M.A., pp. 19. Oxford : 
William Graham. 1841. 

14. The Case of Catholic Subscription to the Thirty -Nine Articles. By the 
Rev. John Keble, M.A., pp. 38. "London: 1841. Not Published." Reprinted 
by Dr. Pusey, in 1865, with Tract XC. 

15. A Vindication of the Principles of the Authors of the Tracts for the Times. 
By the Hon. and Rev. A. P. Percival, B.C.L., pp. 33. London: Rivington. 

1 6. Certain Documents, &., <rv., Connected with the Tracts for the Times 
No. 90, pp. 18. Oxford : Printed by W. Baxter. 1841. 

17. Some Documents, 6-v., &>c., Connected with the Tracts for the Times, 
3rd edition, pp. 15. Oxford : W. Graham. 1841. 

1 8. Oxford or Rome? A Letter to the Rev. J. H. Newman On No. 90 of 
the Tracts for the Times. By an English Catholic, pp. 32. London : James 
Ridgway. 1841. 

19. A Letter to the Rev. T. T. Churton, M.A. By the Rev. H. B. Wilson, 
St. John s College, Oxford, 2nd edition, pp. 31. Oxford : W. Graham. 1841. 

20. A Few Words in Support of No. 90, partly with Reference to Mr. 
Wilson s Letter. By the Rev. William George Ward, M.A., pp. 48. London : 
Parker. 1841. 

21. A Few More Words in Support of No. 90. By the Rev. William George 
Ward, M.A., pp. 91. Oxford : Parker. 1841. 

22. Observations Suggested by a Few More Words in Support of No. 90. By 
Robert Lowe, Esq., Magdalen College (afterwards Lord Sherbrooke), pp. 24. 
Oxford: W. Baxter. 1841. 

23. The Thirty -Nine Articles Considered Chiefly with Reference to the Views 
of Tract No. 90. A Lecture by Godfrey Faussett, D.D., Lady Margaret Professor 
of Divinity, pp. 44. Oxford : Parker. 1841. 

24. The Subject of Tract XC. Examined. By the Rev. Frederick Oakeley, 
M. A., pp. 84. London: Rivington. 1841. 


of them founded on the historical view." 1 He was evidently 
acquainted at least with the existence of Santa Clara s book 
(on whose lines Tract XC. was written) as early as i835. 2 
Newman says that one motive which he had in view when 
writing this Tract " was the desire to ascertain the ultimate 
points of contrariety between the Roman and Anglican 
Creeds, and to make them as few as possible 3 And then he 
had a difficulty : " I was embarrassed in consequence of 
my wish to go as far as was possible in interpreting the 
Articles in the direction of Roman dogma, without disclosing 
what I was doing to the parties whose doubts I was meet 
ing." 4 Many of his followers could not see how, with the 
views they held, they could consistently sign the Articles, 
and consequently they were tempted, for the sake of being 
honest and consistent, to go over to Rome. Tract XC. was 
written to keep them in the Church of England, so as to 
further Newman s great scheme of Corporate Reunion with 
Rome. The italics in the next quotation are Newman s : 

" It was thrown in our teeth," says Newman, " How can you 
manage to sign the Articles? they are directly against Rome. 
Against Rome ? I made answer ; what do you mean by Rome " ? 
and then 1 proceeded to make distinctions, of which I shall now give 
an account. 

"By Roman doctrine might be meant one of three things: i, 
the Catholic teaching of the early centuries ; or 2, the formal dogmas 
of Rome as contained in the later Councils, especially the Council of 
Trent, and as condensed in the Creed of Pope Pius IV. ; 3, the 
actual popular beliefs and usages sanctioned by Rome in the countries 
in communion with it, over and above the dogmas ; and these I 
called dominant errors. Now Protestants commonly thought that 
in all three senses Roman doctrine was condemned in the 

25. The Subject of Tract XC. Historically Considered. By the Rev. Frederick 
Oakeley, M.A., 2nd edition, revised, pp. xvi. 87. London : James Toovey. 

26. Tract XC. Historically Refuted. A Reply to the Rev. F. Oakeley. By 
William Goode, M.A., Dean of Ripon, 2nd edition, pp. iv. 191. London: 
Hatchard. 1866. 

27. Oxford: Tract No. 90 and Warcfs Ideal of a Christian Church. By 
the Rev. W. Simcox Bricknell, M.A., 3rd edition, pp. 69. Oxford : J. Vincent. 

1 Newman s Letters^ vol. i. p. 239. 

2 Ibid. vol. ii, p. 147. 

8 Apologia Pro Vita Sua, p. 160. 
4 Ibid. p. 162. 


Articles : I thought that the Catholic teaching was not condemned ; 
that the dominant errors were ; and as to the formal dogmas^ that 
some were, some were not, and that the line had to be drawn 
between them. Thus, i, the use of Prayers for the dead was a 
Catholic doctrine, not condemned ; 2, the prison of Purgatory was 
a Roman dogma, which was condemned ; but the infallibility of 
Ecumenical Councils was a Roman dogma not condemned; and 3, 
the fire of Purgatory was an authorised and popular error, not a 
dogma which was condemned." 1 

This explanation, given by Newman himself twenty- 
three years after Tract XC. was written, may be supple 
mented by a few extracts from the document itself. In 
the Introduction the author was not ashamed to speak of 
the Church of England in terms almost of contempt. 
" Till/ he said, " her members are stirred up to this 
religious course, let the Church sit still ; let her be content 
to be in bondage; let her work in chains; let her submit to 
her imperfections as a punishment ; let her go on teach 
ing with the stammering lips of ambiguous formularies and 
inconsistent precedents." " He boldly maintained that 
(t the Articles are not written against the Creed of the Roman 
Church, but against actual existing errors in it, whether 
taken into its system or not." ; 

" These extracts show not only what the Anglican doctrine is, 
but, in particular, that the phrase { Rule of Faith is no symbolical 
expression with us, appropriated to some one sense ; certainly not as 
a definition or attribute of Holy Scripture. And it is important to 
insist upon this, from the very great misconceptions to which the 
phrase gives rise. Perhaps its use had better be avoided altogether. 
In the sense in which it is commonly understood at this day, 

1 Apologia Pro Vita Sua, p. 159. 

2 Tract XC., ist edition, p. 4. In the 2nd edition this passage was altered 
to read as follows: "Till we are stirred up to this religious course, let the 
Church, our Mother, sit still ; let her children be content to be in bondage ; let us 
work in chains ; let us submit to our imperfections as a punishment ; let us go on 
teaching through the meaning of indeterminate statements and inconsistent prece 
dents." The passage was toned down because the author felt he had acted 
unwisely in going so far ; but he expressed no regret for his first version, which, I 
believe, more accurately expressed his real sentiments all through the controversy 
which it produced. 

3 Ibid. p. 59. 


Scripture^ it is plain^ is not, on Anglican principles -, the Rule of 

"Now the first remark that occurs on perusing this Article 
[XXII.] is that the doctrine objected to is the Romish doctrine. For 
instance, no one would suppose that the Calvinistic doctrine, con 
cerning Purgatory, Pardons, and Image Worship, is spoken against. 
Not every doctrine on these matters is a fond thing, but the Romish 
doctrine. Accordingly the Primitive doctrine is not condemned in 
it, unless, indeed, the Primitive doctrine be the Romish, which must 
not be supposed." 2 

"And further by the Romish doctrine [Article XXIL] is not 
meant the Tridentine doctrine, because this Article was drawn up 
before the decree of the Council of Trent. 3 What is opposed is the 
received doctrine of the day, and unhappily of this day too, or the 
doctrine of the Roman schools ; a conclusion which is still more 
clear by considering that there are portions of the Tridentine doc 
trine on these subjects, which the Article, far from condemning, 
by anticipation approves." 4 

"The pardons, then, spoken of in the Article [XXIL], are large 
and reckless indulgences from the penalties of sin obtained on 
money payments." 5 

"This Article [XXV.] does not deny the five rites in question to 
be Sacraments, but to be Sacraments in the sense in which Baptism 
and the Lord s Supper are Sacraments." 6 

" Here [Article XXXL] the Sacrifice of the Mass is not spoken 

i Tract XC. p. II. 2 Ibid. p. 23. 

3 This assertion is ably and conclusively refuted by Dean Goode, in his reply 
to a similar assertion made by the Rev. F. Oakeley. " It is quite true," he writes, 
"that the session of the Council of Trent, in which its decrees respecting Purga 
tory, Indulgences, Worship of Relics and Images, and Invocation of Saints were 
laid down, was posterior to the revision of the Articles ; the latter being in 
January 1562-3, and the former in December 1563. But not only was there 
sufficient evidence what the doctrine of the Church of Rome was upon those 
subjects from other sources, but in fact as to Purgatory (Sess. vi. can. 30 ; Sess. 
xxii. c. 2.), Indulgences (Sess. xxi. c. 9), and Invocation of Saints (Sess. xxii. 
c. 3), these doctrines had been distinctly recognised in various sessions of the 
Council that had preceded the revision of the Articles. Indeed, out of the 
twenty-five sessions of the Council, the Decrees of sixteen (including the doctrines 
of Scripture and Tradition, Original Sin, Justification, and Good Works, the 
Sacraments, Baptism, the Lord s Supper, &c.) were well known here before the 
Articles were originally drawn up in 1552 ; and the Decrees of twenty-two must 
have been well known here before the revision in January 1562-3, the twenty- 
second session having taken place in September 1562, four months previous. 
And the only matters connected with our present subject discussed in the remain 
ing three sessions were, the Sacraments of Order and Matrimony, and the points 
above mentioned. So utterly incorrect is the assertion that the Decrees of 
Trent were drawn up after the Articles " ( Tract XC. Historically Refitted. By 
William Goode, Dean of Ripon, 2nd edition, 1866, p. 77). 

4 Tract XC. p. 24. 5 Ibid. p. 31. 6 Ibid. p. 43. 


of, in which the special question of doctrine would be introduced ; 
but the Sacrifice of Masses. " l 

" Bishop is superior to Bishop only in rank, not in real power ; 
and the Bishop of Rome, the head of the Catholic world, is not the 
centre of unity, except as having a primacy of order" 2 

When Tract XC. reached the Roman Catholic College 
at Oscott, the Romanists were delighted. The biographer 
of Cardinal Wiseman tells us : " Oscott, as might be 
expected, rejoiced. At last it seemed that the Tractarians 
meant business. " Newman wrote the Tract to keep 
his followers contented in the Church of England. It 
had, as we are told by one of them, who subsequently 
became a Roman priest [the Rev. W. Lockhart] a directly 
opposite effect. Lockhart says : " On us young men 
Tract XC. had the effect of strengthening greatly our 
growing convictions that Rome was right and the Church 
of England wrong." 4 

Neither Newman himself, nor Keble, to whom he 
showed the Tract before publication, seem to have anti 
cipated that it would cause any special sensation. It was 
published on Saturday, February 27, 1841, and at once 
created a public excitement. As early as the 8th of 
March, four Tutors of Oxford Colleges addressed an 
important letter on the subject addressed," To the Editor 
of the Tracts for the Times." It was as follows : 

" SIR, Our attention having been called to No. 90 in the series 
of Tracts for the Times, by Members of the University of Oxford/ 
of which you are the editor, the impression produced upon our 
minds by its contents is of so painful a character, that we feel it our 
duty to intrude ourselves briefly on your notice. This publication is 
entitled, Remarks on Certain Passages in the Thirty-Nine Articles, 
and, as these Articles are appointed by the Statutes of the Univer 
sity to be the text-book for Tutors in their theological teaching, we 
hope that the situations we hold in our respective Colleges will 

1 Tract XC. p. 59. 2 Ibid. p. 78. 

3 Life and Times, of Cardinal Wiseman, vol. i. p. 373. 

4 Article by the Rev. W. Lockhart, on "Cardinal Newman," in the Pater 
noster Review , October 1890, p. 28. 


secure us from the charge of presumption in thus coming forward to 
address you. 

" The Tract has, in our apprehension, a highly dangerous tendency, 
from its suggesting that certain very important errors of the Church 
of Rome are not condemned by the Articles of the Church of 
England. For instance, that those Articles do not contain any 
condemnation of the doctrines 

" i. Of Purgatory, 

2. Of Pardons, 

3. Of the Worshipping and Adoration of Images and 


4. Of the Invocation of Saints, 

5. Of the Mass, 

"as they are taught authoritatively by the Church of Rome, but only 
of certain absurd practices and opinions which intelligent Roman 
ists repudiate as much as we do. It is intimated, moreover, that 
the Declaration prefixed to the Articles, so far as it has any weight 
at all, sanctions this mode of interpreting them, as it is one which 
takes them in their literal and grammatical sense, and does 
not affix any new sense to them. The Tract would thus appear 
to us to have a tendency to mitigate, beyond what charity requires, 
and to the prejudice of the pure truth of the Gospel, the very serious 
differences which separate the Church of Rome from our own, and 
to shake the confidence of the less learned members of the Church 
of England in the Scriptural character of her formularies and 

"We readily admit the necessity of allowing that liberty in 
interpreting the formularies of our Church, which has been advo 
cated by many of its most learned Bishops and other eminent 
divines ; but this Tract puts forward new and startling views as to 
the extent to which that liberty may be carried. For if we are 
right in our apprehension of the author s meaning, we are at a loss 
to see what security would remain, were his principles generally 
recognised, that the most plainly erroneous doctrines and practices 
of the Church of Rome might not be inculcated in the lecture rooms 
of the University and from the pulpits of our Churches. 

"In conclusion, we venture to call your attention to the im 
propriety of such questions being treated in an anonymous pub 
lication, and to express an earnest hope that you may be authorised 
to make known the writer s name. Considering how very grave and 
solemn the whole subject is, we cannot help thinking, that both the 
Church and the University are entitled to ask that some person, 


besides the printer and publisher of the Tract, should acknowledge 
himself responsible for its contents. We are, sir, your obedient 
humble servants, 

"T. T. CHURTON, M.A., Vice-Principal and Tutor of 

Brasenose College. 
H. B. WILSON, B.D., Fellow and Senior Tutor of St. John s 

JOHN GRIFFITHS, M.A., Sub-Warden and Tutor of Wadham 


A. C. TAIT, M.A., Fellow and Tutor of Balliol College. 
"OXFORD, March 8, 1841." 

The last to sign this important document, the Rev. 
A. C. Tait, afterwards became Archbishop of Canterbury. 
He never repented of the part he then took, Broad 
Churchman though he was. " Were it all to happen 
again/ he said in 1880, "I think I should, in the same 
position, do exactly as I did then." ] 

Mr. Tait sent a copy of the Address of the four Tutors 
to Dr. Arnold, Head Master of Rugby, who, in his reply, 
wrote strongly, yet justly, in the following terms : 

" I am extremely glad that the Tract has been so noticed ; yet it 
is to me far more objectionable morally than theologically; and 
especially the comment on the 2ist Article, to which you have not 
alluded, is of such a character, that if subscription to the aist 
Article, justified by such rules of interpretation, may be honestly 
practised, I do not see why an Unitarian may not subscribe the 
first Article or the second. The comparative importance of the 
truths subscribed to does not affect the question; I am merely 
speaking of the utter perversion of language shown in the Tract, 
according to which a man may subscribe to an article when he 
holds the very opposite opinions believing what it denies, and 
denying what it affirms." 2 

The letter of the four Tutors, which Newman formally 
acknowledged (but to whom he did not reveal his name), 
was speedily followed by the action of the Heads of 
Houses, at, it is said, the instigation of the Rev. C. P. 
Golightly of Oriel College. Mr. Golightly was one of the 
earliest subscribers to the Tracts for the Times, and for 
some years he was considered as one of the Tractarian 

1 Life of Archbishop Tait, vol. i. p. 87, ist edition. 2 Ibid. p. 86. 


party, being on terms of intimate friendship with all the 
leaders. But, like others, when he discovered whither 
they were moving, he severed his connection with them. 
From the publication of Tract XC. he became one of the 
most zealous opponents of the Tractarians, and living to 
old age, in his later years also he took an active part in op 
posing the Romanising practices carried on in the Diocese 
of Oxford. We shall hear of him again later on. 

The Heads of Houses held several meetings to con 
sider their action. It is stated by Canon Liddon that 
Newman privately informed them that he was bringing 
out in pamphlet form a defence, or apology, for Tract XC., 
and that he asked them to postpone their decision for one 
day only until they had had an opportunity of reading his 
defence. They refused to do so. So far as I can judge 
they seem to have acted very unadvisedly in this. A 
day s delay would have done them no harm, and it would 
certainly have prevented the cry of unfairness which was 
raised against them. Yet, even if they had waited, I do 
not think that Newman s pamphlet would have altered 
their opinion of his Tract, which opinion was dated March 
1 5th, and issued on the morning of March i6th. The 
resolution was in the following terms : 

"At a Meeting of the Vice-Chancellor, Heads of Houses, and 
Proctors, in the Delegates Room, March 15, 1841 : 

" Considering that it is enjoined in the Statutes of this University 
(Tit. iii. Sect. 2, Tit. ix. Sect, n 3, Sect. v. 3) that every 
student shall be instructed and examined in the Thirty-Nine Articles, 
and shall subscribe to them ; considering also that a Tract has 
recently appeared, dated from Oxford, and entitled Remarks on 
Certain Passages in the Thirty-Nine Articles, being No. 90 of the 
Tracts for the Times, a series of anonymous publications purporting 
to be written by Members of the University, but which are in 
no way sanctioned by the University itself; 

" Resolved, That modes of interpretation such as are suggested 
in the said Tract, evading rather than explaining the sense of the 
Thirty-Nine Articles, and reconciling subscription to them with the 
adoption of errors which they were designed to counteract, defeat 
the object, and are inconsistent with the due observance of the 
above-mentioned Statutes. 

"P. WYNTER, Vice-Chancellor." 


Now with regard to the above resolution of the 
Hebdomadal Board there is an interesting statement by 
Mr. Griffiths, one of the four Tutors, in a privately 
printed letter, which has not hitherto been published, 
and which I may cite here. He writes on April 5, 1841, 
to a friend : 

"Now the facts are these. On Friday, March 12, the Board 
resolved that they ought to censure the Tract in some public and 
official way ; and this resolution was carried by nineteen against 
two. The two were . . . One of these two said, that there were 
certain parts of the Tract upon which he did not feel competent to 
pass an opinion, and therefore he voted against the censure. The 
other said, that probably no person present could feel more strongly 
than he did the mischievous tendency of this particular Tract, but 
he thought the Tracts as a whole had done good, and he judged the 
censure inexpedient. Every other person who spoke condemned 
the Tract most strongly. No one, however, spoke as if he was moved 
to condemn it in consequence of our Letter [i.e. of the four Tutors]. 

"But there were only twenty-one persons then present out of 
the twenty-six. Three were absent from infirmity or illness, and 
two by accident. Of the three, one is known to have expressed his 
opinion that the proceedings taken against the Tract were inex 
pedient, but I also know that he has expressed his opinion that the 
Tract itself was likely to be mischievous : the other two would 
certainly have been in the majority. Of the two who were absent 
by accident, one afterwards voted against the proceedings of the 
Board, alleging as his reason, that he should be as much ashamed of 
formally disavowing his concurrence with the principles of interpre 
tation suggested in the Tract as of formally disavowing his disagree 
ment with any person who might chance to deny that two and two 
make four : the other afterwards took occasion to express his deep 
sense of the dangerous tendency of the Tract, and his regret that 
from not knowing the course of the business of the Board he had 
not been present to give his vote on Friday. 

"On that Friday a Committee was appointed to shape the 
censure, .and they reported to the Board on Monday the i5th. 
Several questions then arose upon details, and divisions were had 
with various majorities. The first was about an adjournment, for 
Mr. Newman had informed the Provost of Oriel that the author of 
the Tract, still not named, would publish an explanation of it in two 
or three days. The minority on this consisted of either three or 
four ; but even he who on Friday opposed the measure as inexpedient, 
maintained that the Board ought to do whatever it did at once. On 


the subsequent questions, which related chiefly or entirely to the 
wording of their resolution, I believe that both the members, who 
formed the minority on Friday, declined to vote. No other division 
touched the main question. 

"All this I state confidently on the direct authority of ear 
witnesses." 1 

On the same day that the resolution of the Heads of 
Houses was made public, Newman wrote to the Vice- 
Chancellor, acknowledging himself the author of the cen 
sured Tract, and stating that he had not given his " name 
hitherto, under the belief that it was desired that I should 
not," and that his opinion remained "unchanged of the 
truth and honesty of the principle maintained in the Tract, 
and of the necessity of putting it forth." On the same 
evening Newman s promised explanation was published, 
but without his name. The title-page stated that it was 
" By the Author " of the Tract, and at the end he placed 
his initials. In this pamphlet Newman declares that he 
does consider that the Thirty-Nine Articles " contain a 
condemnation of the authoritative teaching of the Church of 
Rome " on Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping, and Adora 
tion of Images and Relics, the Invocation of Saints, and 
the Mass ; 2 but he is careful to explain what he means 
by the expression " authoritative teaching." " I conceive," 
he writes, " that what < all the best writers say is authori 
tative teaching, and a sufficient object for the censures con 
veyed in the Articles, though the decrees of Trent, taken 
by themselves, remain untouched." 3 Even in this ex 
planation, therefore, he admits that he had not anything 
to say against what had been defined officially by the 
Church of Rome, but only against what some of her 
writers had taught. He knew very well that Rome is not 
bound by what her " best writers " teach, and that she is 
free to reject their teaching whenever she likes. He 
admits that any one who believed that the Church of 
Rome is infallible ought to join her ; but he is careful to 

1 Two Letters Concerning No. 90 in the Series called the Tracts for the Times. 
Printed, for Private Distribution Only, by W. Baxter, Oxford, 1841, pp. 13-15. 

2 A Letter to the Rev. R. W. Jelf, D.D., In Explanation of No. 90. By the 
Author, 2nd edition, p. 4. 3 Ibid. p. 10. 


assure his readers : " I am not aware that this doctrine is 
anywhere embodied in her formal decrees." He has 
strong things to say against this teaching of the " best 
divines." " As to the present authoritative teaching of 
the Church of Rome," he writes, "to judge by what we see of 
it in public, I think it goes very far indeed to substitute 
another Gospel for the true one. Instead of setting before 
the soul the Holy Trinity, and Heaven and Hell ; it does 
seem to me, as a popular system, to preach the Blessed 
Virgin and the Saints, and Purgatory. If ever there was 
a system which required reformation, it is that of Rome at 
this day, or in other words (as I should call it) Romanism 
or Popery." 1 As to what the Council of Trent teaches 
concerning the Veneration of Images, he sees nothing to 
object against ; but he declares that it is better than the 
popular system of Rome in actual operation : " The 
Divines at Trent," he writes, " say that to images are to 
be paid due honour and veneration ; and to those who 
honour the sacred volume, pictures of friends, and the 
like, as we all do, / do not see that these very words of them 
selves can be the subject of objection. Far otherwise when we 
see the comment which the Church of Rome has put on 
them in teaching and practice. I consider its existing 
creed and popular worship to be as near idolatry as any 
portion of that Church can be." 2 Bad as all he objects to 
is, Newman tries to save the character of the Church of 
Rome at the expense of her children, for as to the prac 
tical abuses condemned in Tract XC. he points out that 
Romanists have protested against them as much as he 
had: "At the Council of Trent such protests," he writes, 
" as are quoted in the Tract, were entered against so many 
of the very errors and corruptions which our Articles and 
Homilies also condemn." 3 He assures Dr. Jelf that this, 
his explanation, is not to be taken as withdrawing any 
opinion he had expressed in Tract XC. On the contrary, 
he tells him : " Nor can I repent of what I have pub 
lished." 4 " Nor is this Letter a retractation." 5 

1 A Letter to the Rev. R. W.Jelf^ D.D., In Explanation of No. 90, p. 5. 

2 Ibid. pp. 6, 7. 3 Ibid. p. 15. 4 Ibid. p. 27. 6 Ibid. p. 29. 


All through this pamphlet it seems to me that New 
man is in reality censuring the Romanists for not being 
as good as their Church, while he holds that Church re 
sponsible for their misconduct. He threatens that if he 
and his friends are not allowed to have their own way, 
there will be a " risk of a schism " ; l and he holds up the 
Church of Rome to the admiration of English Churchmen 
as having many spiritual blessings of which, in the Church 
of England, they were deprived. 

" The age," he writes, " is moving towards something, and most 
unhappily the one religious communion among us which has of late 
years been practically in possession of this something, is the Church 
of Rome. She a/one, amid all the errors and evils of her practical 
system, has given free scope to the feelings of awe, mystery, tender 
ness, reverence, devotedness, and other feelings which may specially 
be called Catholic. The question then is, whether we shall give 
them up to the Roman Church or claim them for ourselves. . . . 
But if we do give them up, then we must give up the men who 
cherish them. We must consent either to give up the men, or to 
admit their principles." 2 

In this way Newman glorified the Church of Rome, 
and tried to frighten the Church of England into admitting 
the principles of the Tractarians, under the threat that if 
they were not tolerated the men who held them would go to 
Rome. Not that Rome was, just at that time, over anxious 
to hurry them over the border. It suited her schemes that 
they should for a time remain in the Church of England. 
Cardinal Wiseman s biographer very frankly admits that : 
"Wiseman s attitude, however, as a whole, was deeply 
sympathetic towards the spirit and intentions of the 
Tractarians. ... He acquiesced in the view that while 
Newman was satisfied with remaining in the English 
Church in the hope of ultimately bringing many to unity, 
he might do so without being urged to cut short his time of waiting." 
This policy had been adopted before Tract ^fC.was published. 
Of the previous year Mr. Wilfred Ward writes: "Corporate 
Reunion with Rome was more and more explicitly spoken 

1 A Letter to the Rev. R. W.Jelf, D.D., In Explanation of No. 90, p. 27. 

2 Ibid. pp. 25, 26. * Life and Times of Cardinal Wiseman, vol. i. p. 381. 


of by them [advanced Tractarians] as a practicable pros 
pect, though its nature and extent were somewhat un 
defined. The pressing of individual conversions was deprecated, 
even by the most advanced of the party, as likely to prevent 
the realisation of any such hope. The Corporate Movement 
contemplated soon became limited, however, to a large 
accession of Tractarians to Rome. The events of 1841 
negatived the idea of any action on the part of the National 
Church ; and Newman, Ward, and Oakeley very soon came 
to see that what was spoken of as < Reunion must amount 
to nothing less than submission to Rome." x 

To the Roman Catholics on the Continent these subtle 
plans of the Tractarians were made known by a letter, 
written soon after the publication of Tract XC., to the 
Editor of the Paris Univers y in which it appeared on April 
1 3th. The letter was written by the Rev. W. G. Ward, 
and was translated into French by Mr J. D. Dalgairns, 
of Exeter College, Oxford. Mr. Ward wrote : 

"The charity which you have always shown towards the Anglican 
Church makes me think you will not refuse to find room in your 
Catholic journal lor the letter of one of the children of that afflicted 
Church which has drunk to the dregs the bitter cup which is now 
the lot of all the Churches of Christ. The eyes of all Christendom 
are at this moment turned to England, so long separated from the 
rest of Catholic Europe ; everywhere a presentiment has gone forth 
that the hour of her reunion is at hand, and that this island, of old 
so fruitful in saints, is once more about to put forth new fruits worthy 
of the martyrs who have watered it with their blood. And, truly, 
this presentiment is not ungrounded, as I shall prove to you by a 
detail of what is now passing in the University of Oxford. This 
detail is the more important, inasmuch as the University is indeed 
the heart of the Anglican Church, the beatings of which make the 
remotest members of this great body quiver. The only end I pro 
pose to myself is to give you a just idea of the present position of 
the Anglican Church, so that the French Catholics may share the 
emotions of our souls. And I do not believe that it is possible to 
give you an idea of them otherwise than by an exposition of a small 
treatise which has lately appeared. I do not flatter myself that you 
will approve of all the opinions which I am about to mention. I do 
not defend them. I am their historian not their author. 

1 Life and Times of Cardinal Wiseman, vol. i. pp. 371, 372. 


" Mr. Newman, one of our theologians, published, a few days 
since, the ninetieth number of the Tracts for the Times, in which he 
designs to demonstrate that the Church of Rome has fallen into no 
formal error in the Council of Trent, that the Invocations of the 
Saints (the Ora pro nobis, for example), Purgatory, and the Supre 
macy of the Holy See of Rome, are in no way contrary to the Catholic 
traditions, or even to our authorised formularies ; in fine, that the 
dogma of Transubstantiation should be no obstacle to the union of 
the Churches, as in this article there is only a verbal difference 
between them. At the same time he is but little satisfied with our 
Thirty-Nine Articles, although he maintains throughout that the pro 
vidence of God hindered the Reformers from openly inserting in 
them the Protestant dogmas to which they were but too much 
attached. You will perceive, sir, all the importance of those 
opinions, and the more so as they are not the opinions of an isolated 
theologian. I can assure you, that at the same time that an opposi 
tion was raised by the elder members of the University (as might be 
expected, seeing that they lived under the system of the eighteenth 
century), that very opposition gave me an opportunity of observing 
that even the most moderate of the Catholic party at Oxford were 
ready to sustain the author of the Tract. 

"You see then, sir, that humility, the first condition of every 
sound reform, is not wanting in us. We are little satisfied with our 
position. We groan at the sins committed by our ancestors in 
separating from the Catholic world. We experience a burning desire 
to be reunited to our brethren. We love with an unfeigned affection 
the Apostolic See, which we acknowledge to be the head of Christendom, 
and the more because the Church of Rome is our mother, which 
sent from her bosom the blessed St. Augustine to bring us her immov 
able faith. We admit also that it is not our formularies, nor even 
the Council of Trent, which prevent our union. After all these 
concessions, you may ask me, Why, then, do you not rejoin us ? What 
is it that prevents you ? Is it your formularies ? But, according to 
yourself, you do not look upon them with a very favourable eye. Is 
it ours ? But, in your opinion, they do not contain any error. My 
reply to this question will develop to you still more clearly our 
present position. In the first place, while Mr. Newman expresses 
himself thus clearly on the purity of the formularies authorised by 
the Church of Rome, he always makes a distinction between the 
system of the Council of Trent and another system which exists in 
that Church. While he returns thanks to God for having preserved 
that Council from all formal error in matters of faith, he, at the same 
time, maintains that in practice there are corruptions in the Church 



against which the Council itself raises its voice, but which neverthe 
less still exist, and call loudly for reform. Thus he says that not 
withstanding the errors in practical system, there is no Church but 
that of Rome which has given a free course to the emotions of 
adoration, of mystery, of tenderness, of reverence, devotion, and to 
the other sentiments of that kind, which may so entirely be called 
Catholic. He maintains that the theory of the Church is pure ; 
but that, according to certain books of piety which are too widely 
spread, according to the statements of enlightened travellers, free 
from all the prejudices of vulgar Protestantism, he fears that there is 
a system authorised which, practically, * instead of presenting to the 
soul of the sinner the Holy Trinity, Heaven, and Hell, substitutes 
for that the Holy Virgin, the Saints, and Purgatory. It is true that 
all that does not form an essential part of the faith of the Church, 
but he avows that the system loudly calls for reform, and that it 
would be impossible for the Anglican Church yet to cast itself into 
the arms of that of Rome. 

" In the second place, we have a sacred duty to discharge towards 
the members of our Church. We cannot yet bring ourselves to 
believe that our dear England is in the same position as the heretics 
who boast in the names of Luther and Calvin. Of a truth, sir, is not 
the Episcopal order still worth something ? A sacrilegious king may 
indeed have stolen from the altars of Canterbury the sacred bones of 
St. Thomas, but, think you he had the power to drive away the 
great soul who, from his throne in the skies, ever watches over the 
See which he has illustrated by his life, and consecrated by his blood ? 
God forbid that the august line of Lanfranc and of Anselm should 
ever cease. If we have not preserved it, it is no more ; for, of a 
truth, you will not say that its succession has been kept up by you. 
There is no Archbishop in partibus of Canterbury or York, as there 
is of Cambysopolis or of Siga. But perhaps you may say that the 
moment an Archbishop ceases to be in communion with Rome, he 
also ceases to exist. But permit me here to become a little scholastic, 
and to borrow the terms with which the schools supply me, in order 
to give precision to my ideas. 

" The Papacy, according to us, is rather the accidental than the 
essential form of the Church. It resembles rather the vital heat than 
the life of the Church. The absence of heat is a mark of sickness. 
Without it the limbs, powerless, are dragged sorrowfully about, and 
the functions of life languish ; but life may still be there. Thus, 
union with the Pope is a necessary result of the perfect health of the 
Church. The retrenching of this union is a proof that all does not 
go well. It is a symptom of the presence of a malady which gnaws 


the entrails of the Church. Her priesthood is, perhaps, deprived of 
some of its functions, or, as, alas ! is too certainly the case with us, the 
episcopacy is subject to the powers of this world. But life that is 
to say, the essence of the Church is not yet extinct. We have, 
then, still a duty to perform towards our brethren. 

" There are at this moment in the Anglican Church a crowd of 
persons who balance between Protestantism and Catholicism, and 
who, nevertheless, would reject with horror the idea of a union with 
Rome. The Protestant prejudices, which for three hundred years 
have infected our Church, are unhappily too deeply rooted there to 
be extirpated without a great deal of address. We must then offer in 
sacrifice to God this ardent desire which devours us of seeing once 
more the perfect unity of the Church of Christ. We must still bear 
the terrible void which the isolation of our Church creates in our 
hearts, and remain still till it pleases God to convert the hearts of 
our Anglican confreres, especially of our holy fathers the Bishops. 
We are destined, I am persuaded, to bring back many wandering 
sheep to the knowledge of the truth. In fact, the progress of 
Catholic opinions in England for the last seven years is so inconceiv 
able, that no hope should appear extravagant. Let us, then, remain 
quiet for some years, till, by God s blessing, the ears of Englishmen are 
accustomed to hear the name of Rome pronounced with reverence. At 
the end of this term you will soon see the fruits of our patience. 

" But, moreover, I venture to say, that we have besides a sacred 
duty to fulfil towards Rome. Far from us be that vulgar Protes 
tantism which dares to open its profane mouth, and utter its calum 
nies against the See of St. Peter. Yes, if I could once be convinced 
that the Spirit of God had quitted the Church of Rome, I should 
think at the same time that Christianity was about to be extinguished 
all over the world. . . . 

"And this great heart [of England] once so Catholic, this 
poor heart, so long torn by the vigour of its own life, exhausted 
in vain efforts to fill up the frightful void which reigns there, does 
it not merit some sacrifices on your part, that it may find consolation 
and healing? Oh, how sweet it was to hear that our Catholic 
brethren prayed for us. The triumphant army in heaven prays 
also for us. It has prayed, I am sure, from the beginning of 
these three centuries of schism and heresy. Why have not the prayers 
of St. Gregory, St. Augustine, and St. Thomas been heard ? Be 
cause of our sins \ the sins not only of England, but of Rome. Let 
us go and do penance together and we shall be heard. During this 
holy time, in which the Church retires to the depths of the solitude 
of her soul, following the bleeding feet of her Divine Master, driven by 


the Spirit into the desert^ know that many of us stretch out our hands 
day and night before the Lord, and beg of Him, with sighs and 
groans, to reunite them to our Catholic brethren. Frenchmen ! fail 
not to aid us in this holy exercise ; and I am persuaded that many 
Lents will not have passed before we shall chaunt together our 
Paschal hymns, in those sublime accents which have been used by 
the Divine Spouse of Christ for so many ages." l 

Roman Catholics as well as Protestants and Tract- 
arians entered zealously into the controversy started by 
Tract XC. Of course it gave them intense joy to witness 
Newman s gradual advance Romeward, while they held in 
contempt the logic by which he maintained his position 
in the Church of England. One who signed himself " An 
English Catholic " wrote to Newman a stinging letter, in 
which he said : " That you should deem it consistent 
with your station in the Church of England to sanction 
by your writings a belief in some of the most unpopular 
doctrines of the Catholic Church is, no doubt, a subject 
of some surprise to the members of our [Roman Catholic] 
communion. But however we might wonder, we, at least, 
should have no right to reproach you ; nor could your 
equivocal position afford us any ground of complaint, had 
the question rested here. But, sir, we have a right to com 
plain, and we do complain, that in order to screen yourself 
in the adoption of our tenets from the obloquy and ruin that 
your profession of them, as ours, would undoubtedly entail 
upon you, you deliberately distort and misrepresent our faith 
and practice that in order to avert the impending storm 
of Protestant ire from your own devoted head, you erect 
a counterfeit image of Romanism to serve as an eccle 
siastical lightning conductor." As to Newman s attempt, 
in Tract XC., to reconcile the Council of Trent with the 
Thirty-Nine Articles, this Roman Catholic writer forcibly 
remarks : " If you can only establish the fact that the 
acceptance of the Decrees of Trent is consistent with a 
belief in the Thirty-Nine Articles, there is not a Roman 

1 Catholic Magazine, vol. for 1841, pp. 310-313. 

2 Oxford or Rome? A Letter to the Rev. J. H. Newman on No. 90. By 
An English Catholic, p. 3. 


Catholic in England, Ireland, or Scotland, from his Grace 
of Norfolk down to your humble correspondent, who 
may not subscribe these Articles with a safe and easy 
conscience ! " l 

Dr. Wiseman could not remain an idle spectator of 
the controversy in which he took the deepest interest. 
Directly after Newman had published his Letter to Dr. Jetf, 
Wiseman wrote to him about it, and published his letter 
as a pamphlet. He distinctly repudiated the theory 
Newman had put forth. "The existence," wrote Wise 
man, " of any such authoritative teaching at variance with 
the doctrines of the Tridentine Synod is, to me, a novel 
idea ; and I think it will prove so to all Catholics." But 
though he criticised, Wiseman had a great deal more to 
be thankful for than to find fault with, and therefore, at 
the end of his letter, he expresses his gratitude to Newman 
in the warmest terms. " In conclusion," he wrote, " I 
thank you, Rev. Sir, from my heart, for the welcome in 
formation which your letter contains, that men, whom 
you so highly value, should be opening their eyes to the 
beauties and perfections of our Church, and require such 
efforts, as your interpretation of the Articles, to keep them 
from straggling in the direction of Rome. " 

Yet one more Roman Catholic pamphlet on Tract XC. 
I must quote before I pass on. It was written by a 
gentleman who, as we shall see more fully presently, gave 
the chief energies of his life, from 1841 until his death, to 
help on the Oxford Movement, because he saw clearly 
that the fruits of that Movement would be reaped by the 
Church of Rome. I refer to Mr. Ambrose Lisle Phillipps, 
who afterwards adopted the name of Ambrose Phillipps 
de Lisle. Tract XC. filled his heart with joy and glad 
ness : 

"It is impossible," he wrote, "to do sufficient justice to the 
firmness and courage which Mr. Newman has evinced in acknow- 

1 Oxford or Rome ? p. 5. 

3 A Letter to the Rev. J. H. Newman On Some Passages in his Letter to the 
Rev. Dr. Jelf. By N. Wiseman, p. 5. 
3 Ibid. p. 31. 


ledging the authorship of Tract No. 90. I rejoice also to see that, 
in his subsequent Letter to Dr. Jelf, he persists in his noble declara 
tion in favour of so many Catholic truths, no less than in his 
generous attempt to soften down the differences between the Church 
of England and the Catholic Church, which to me at least appears 
a most important step towards the reunion and the peace of dis 
tracted Christendom. Above all I hail, with inexpressible joy, and 
the deepest gratitude towards Him who holds in His hands the 
hearts of men, and who for the love of mankind turns every event 
to the good of His Church, the glorious admissions which, both in 
the Tract and the Letter^ are so fearlessly proclaimed in behalf of 
that holy Council of Trent, against which for three centuries such 
absurd and irrational prejudices had taken root in the minds of our 
separated brethren." 1 

But while Newman and his friends were, on the 
whole, pleased with Tract XC., the Bishop of Oxford was 
placed by it in a very uncomfortable position. With the 
general principles of the Tracts for the Times he agreed, but 
this latest of the series seemed to him to go too far for 
him to follow. His first step seems to have been that of 
opening a private correspondence with Pusey, Newman, 
and the Archbishop of Canterbury on the subject. To 
Pusey, on March i yth, the Bishop wrote : " I feel safe in 
declaring to you more fully the fears which I entertain as 
to the possible consequences of the recent publication ; 
and you will understand me when I say that I look with 
anxiety to its effects, not only within the limits of my 
diocese, but throughout the Church of which I am a 
Bishop, and in the purity and tranquillity of which I am 
deeply interested. ... If he [Newman] could also adopt 
respectful language (and the more cordial the better) in 
speaking of the formularies of the Church, he would do 
much to relieve the minds of many (myself among others) 
who, with a sincere reverence and desire for Catholic 
truth, have an unfeigned attachment to the principles of 
the Church of England." 2 To Newman himself the 
Bishop wrote on the same day : " I do feel it my duty 

1 Some Remarks on a Letter to Dr. Jelf. By Ambrose Lisle Phillipps, Esq., 
p. 4. 

2 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. ii. p. 184. 


to express my regret at its publication, and to state to 
you plainly, though generally, my honest conviction of 
its containing much which I am sure is directly the 
reverse of what the writer would wish or expect from it, 
but what would, in my opinion, tend both to disunite and 
endanger the Church." 1 The Archbishop of Canterbury 
expressed the opinion that there were passages in Tract 
XC. which were "very objectionable," and that it seemed 
to him most desirable that the publication of the Tracts 
should be discontinued for ever." 2 The Bishop of Oxford 
agreed with the desire of the Archbishop for the suppression 
of the Tracts, and suggested that Newman should write 
and publish a letter of explanation to his Diocesan. New 
man consented to both requests. The result of the dis 
continuance of the Tracts was, in the opinion of Canon 
Liddon, not altogether satisfactory to High Churchmen. 
" Looked at from a distance," he remarks, " and taken 
together, the censure of the Heads of Houses and the 
discontinuance of the Tracts at the request of the Bishop, 
produced a widespread feeling of discouragement among 
High Churchmen." 3 Newman s Letter to the Bishop is 
dated March 2Qth, and filled a pamphlet of forty-seven 
pages. It could not be termed satisfactory to Protestant 
Churchmen, and was in no way calculated to remove 
their reasonable objections. He expressed a sense of 
" the inestimable privileges " of being a member of that 
Church over which his lordship presided ; that that 
Church " was a Divinely ordained channel of supernatural 
grace to the souls of her members " ; and that it was 
"the Catholic Church in this country." 4 But on the 
other hand, while he had some things to censure in the 
Church of Rome, he had words of praise for her, and 
expressed a desire for reunion with that communion. 
Both criticisms and praise are found in one paragraph. 

"They find," he explained, "in what I have written, no abuse, 
at least I trust not, of the individual Roman Catholic, nor of the 

1 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. ii. p. 185. 2 Ibid. p. 190. 3 Ibid. p. 204. 

4 A Letter to the Bishop of Oxford On Occasion of No. 90. By J. H. New 
man, B.D., pp. 33, 34. 


Church of Rome, viewed abstractedly as a Church. / cannot speak 
against the Church of Rome> viewed in her formal character, as a 
true Church, since she is built upon the foundation of the Apostles 
and Prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the Chief Corner Stone. 
Nor can I speak against her private members, numbers of whom, I 
trust, are God s people, in the way to Heaven, and one with us in 
heart, though not in profession. But what I have spoken, and do 
strongly speak against, is that energetic system and engrossing 
influence in the Church by which it acts towards us, and meets our 
eyes, like a cloud filling it, to the eclipse of all that is holy, whether 
in its ordinances or its members. This system I have called, in 
what I have written, Romanism or Popery ; and by Romanists and 
Papists, I mean all its members, as far as they are under the 
power of these principles ; and while, and so far as this system 
exists^ and it does exist now as fully as heretofore, / say that we can 
have no peace with that Church, however we may secretly love its 
particular members. I cannot speak against its private members ; 
I should be doing violence to every feeling of my nature if I did, 
and your lordship would not require it of me. I wish from my heart 
we and they were one ; but we cannot, without a sin, sacrifice truth 
to peace; and, in the words of Archbishop Laud, till Rome be 
other than it is, we must be estranged from her." l 

Newman herein affirmed that there could be " no 
peace " with the Church of Rome, not because of any of 
her actual doctrines, but because of " this system " within 
her ; but as to the Church of Rome herself, apart from 
" this system/ he declared : " I wish from my heart we 
and they were one." In proof of his dislike of " this 
system," Newman quoted several utterances of his which 
he had made from time to time, more especially in the 
Tracts for the Times, and his Lectures on Romanism and 
Popular Protestantism. The value of these utterances 
against the practical evils of Rome and her system may 
be judged by the reasons he gave, less than two years later, 
for making them, at the time he withdrew them as " dirty 
words of mine." " If," wrote Newman to the Oxford 
Conservative Journal, " you ask me how an individual could 
venture not simply to hold, but to publish such views of a 

1 A Letter to the Bishop of Oxford On Occasion of No. 90, pp. 20, 21. 

2 Memoirs of James Hope- Scott, vol. ii. p. 19. 


communion [Church of Rome] so ancient, so wide-spread 
ing, so fruitful of saints, I answer that I said to myself, 7 
am not speaking my own words, 1 I am but following almost a 
consensus of the divines of my Church. They have ever 
used the strongest language against Rome, even the most 
able and learned of them. I wish to throw myself into 
their system. While I say what they say, I am safe. Such 
views, too, are necessary to our position! Yet I have reason 
to fear still that such language is to be ascribed, in no 
small measure, to an impetuous temper, a hope of approv 
ing myself to persons I respect, and a wish to repel the charge 
of Romanism." 2 A week or two later Newman explained 
more fully to his friend, Mr. ]. R. Hope-Scott, his reasons 
for withdrawing all that he had said against the Church of 
Rome. Due allowance must be made for any advance of 
Newman in a Romeward direction between the date when 
he wrote his published Letter to the Bishop of Oxford on 
March 29, 1841, and February 3, 1843, when he wrote 
to Mr. Hope-Scott as follows : 

"My reason for the thing\t\\&t is, for withdrawing his words against 
Rome] was my long-continued feeling of the great inconsistency I was 
in of letting things stand in print against me which I did not hold, 
and which I could not but be contradicting by my acting every day 
of my life. And more especially (i.e. it came home to me most 
vividly in that particular way) I felt that I was taking people in ; that 
they thought me what I was not, and were trusting me when they 
should not, and this has been at times a very painful feeling indeed. 
I don t want to be trusted (perhaps you may think my fear, even 
before this affair, somewhat amusing), but so it was and is ; people 
won t believe I go as far as I do they will cling to their hopes. And 
then, again, intimate friends have almost reproached me with paltering 
with them in a double sense, keeping the word of promise to their ear, 
to break it to their hope. They have said that my words against 
Rome often, when narrowly examined, were only what /meant, but 
that the effect of them was what others meant." 3 

Though foes many attacked Tract XC. y it must not be 
supposed that Newman was without friends to defend it 

1 Yet he published them as his own words / 

2 Newman s Via Media, vol. ii. pp. 432, 433, edition 1891. 
8 Memoirs of James Hope-Scott, vol. ii. pp. 20, 21. 


and him. One of the earliest of these to enter the field 
was the Rev. William George Ward, who himself was, 
three years later, the object of a successful attack from the 
Protestant side. I should imagine that Ward s pamphlet, 
A Feiv Words in Support of No. 90, must have done Newman 
more harm than good, for it set before the public his real 
views in altogether too clear a light, Newman s object being 
to cover his real meaning as far as possible by subtle argu 
ments. The Protestant opposition to Tract XC. was cer 
tainly not lessened by Ward s explanations, especially as 
given in his second pamphlet, A Few More Words in Support 
of No. 90. This latter pamphlet dealt at some length with 
the arguments put forth in an anonymous pamphlet, 
entitled, The Articles Construed by Themselves, the authorship 
of which is now attributed by his biographer to Mr. 
Robert Lowe, of Magdalen College, Oxford, since widely 
known as Lord Sherbrooke. 1 In his Few More Words Mr. 
Ward admitted that it was "a most bitter thought, that 
the principal advocates of what we are well convinced is 
God s holy truth, should be really imagined by serious men 
to advocate a Jesuitical (in the popular sense of that word) 
and disingenuous principle, by which any thing may mean 
any thing, and forms may be subscribed at the most 
solemn period of our life, only to be dishonestly explained 
away." 2 While criticising an article which had appeared 
in the Edinburgh Review, Ward remarked : 

" 2. If we suppose the English Reformation to have severed us 
from the ancient body of the English Church, we shall be bound in 
consistency to leave our own communion and join the Church of 
Rome. The latter of these alternatives the Reviewer urges that we 
are thus bound to adopt : on our principles, he says, the Church of 
England is the offspring of an unjustifiable schism and revolution. 
Alter the wording of this a little, and Mr. Newman, at least, would 
appear not unwilling to admit it. He intimates, not very obscurely 
(Tract, p. 79), that in releasing her from the Roman Supremacy, her 
then governors were guilty of rebellion ; and considering that they 
had also sworn obedience to the Pope, for my own part I see not 

1 Life and Letters of Viscount Sherbrooke. By A. P. Martin, vol. i. p. 123. 

2 A Few More Words. By the Rev. W. G. Ward, p. 5. Oxford : Parker. 


how we can avoid adding, of perjury. The point on which Mr. 
Newman would take his stand is this ; that, estimating the sin at the 
highest, it was not that special sin which cuts off from the fountains 
of grace, and is called schism/ . . . Let him prove to us that the 
Church of England is a Protestant community ; that it was founded 
on the denial of Catholic doctrines ; that it seceded from the Ancient 
English Church which witnessed these doctrines ; let him prove this ; 
and, though the Articles were as obviously on our side as he con 
siders them overwhelmingly against us, our consciences could not 
allow us to remain one moment in a communion which had thus 
forfeited the gifts of grace." 1 

Ward referred to " those whom we revere as eminent 
Saints, the Popes and others of the Middle Ages " ; 2 but 
clearly as he showed in this pamphlet his own Romish 
sympathies, and the contemptible position he considered 
the English Church to be in, as compared with the Roman 
Church, he did not in it tell the public all that he thought 
on the subject he was discussing. His full views were 
revealed to the Paris Roman Catholic Univers, at about 
the same time, as quoted above at pp. 160164. But in 
his letter to that paper he was careful not to reveal his 
name. It was not known that he was the writer of that 
traitorous letter until after his death, when the fact was 
revealed in his biography. 3 Mr. Robert Lowe replied to 
Ward s Few More Words by a pamphlet of twenty-four 
pages, in which he exposed the Jesuitry of what he termed 
a "dark and thorny labyrinth." 

The Rev. and Hon. A. P. Percival, one of the founders 
of the Tractarian Movement, also came to the aid of 
Newman, in a pamphlet of thirty-three pages, bearing the 
title of A Vindication of the Principles of the Authors of " The 
Tracts for the Times." It was dated March 28th. He com 
menced by giving a wholly inadequate description of the 
principles held by the writers of the Tracts (of whom he 
was one), and then asked, " Are these principles, or are 
they not, contrary to the principles of the Reformers, or 
in any respect forbidden by the Church of England ? " 4 

1 Ward s Few More Words, pp. 17, 19. 2 Jbid. p. 33. 

8 William George Ward and the Oxford Movement, p. 187. 
4 A Vindication, p. 8. 


As explained economically by Mr. Percival, I have no doubt 
there were at the time many loyal Churchmen who would 
have answered they were not contrary to either the one or 
the other ; but who would at the same time have indig 
nantly repudiated many of the doctrines taught in the 
Tracts for the Times, and especially in Tract XC. " With re 
spect to the Tract XC.," said Mr. Percival, " I must confess 
that I do not see how any member of the Church of 
England can be blamed for doing what Mr, Newman has 
there attempted to do, namely, to give to the Articles 
of the Church of England that interpretation which shall 
render them most in accordance with that principle of 
deference to the Primitive Church of the first seven centuries" * 
In this, Percival gave an inadequate and misleading repre 
sentation of Newman s action. What Newman wished 
was, not so much to prove that the Articles were not in 
opposition to " the first seven centuries" as that they were 
not opposed to the official teaching of the Church of Rome 
in the nineteenth century. Yet Percival was constrained to 
admit of Tract XC., that " There are many things in it 
which I do not understand, some which I disapprove, 
perhaps from not understanding them : some statements 
advanced which I think cannot be maintained : some 
conclusions drawn, which seem unwarranted by the pre 
mises." 2 But " as to the main object aimed at by the 
Tract" he thought it deserved " the commendation of 
every member of the Church of England." Yet he cannot 
conclude without expressing, in a postscript, against pro 
testing the language of Newman (in his Letter to Dr. Jelf) 
in praise of the Church of Rome. 

Only five days after Mr. Percival s pamphlet was issued, 
another champion of Newman s appeared in the field, whose 
aid he valued more than that of all who had gone before 
him. This was the Rev. John Keble, who Newman always 
considered as the real founder of the Oxford Movement. 
In a privately printed Letter to Mr. Justice Coleridge, Keble 
discussed several important cases of conscience relating to 
subscription to the Thirty-Nine Articles, which are of as 

1 A Vindication, p. 16. * Ibid. p. 18. 


great an interest to us in the present day as when they 
were first written, whatever view we may take of Keble s 
opinions on the subject. I must say that, in this Letter, 
Keble, on the whole, advocated a course in relation to 
University and Episcopal authority the honesty of which 
might well be imitated by the Ritualists of the present day. 
If Keble s advice were adopted it would lead, in Dioceses 
under Protestant Bishops, to a wholesale resignation of 
livings by the Romanising clergy. At the same time there 
was in Keble s letter a defence of Tract XC. open to very 
grave objection. He frankly admitted, at the outset, that 
he was " himself responsible, as far as any one besides 
the actual writer can be, for the Tract on which so severe 
a condemnation has lately been pronounced by the Heads 
of Houses at Oxford ; having seen it in proof, and strongly 
recommended its publication." l He even goes so far as 
to defend that part of Tract XC. which was generally 
considered one of its most offensive portions, and which 
the author withdrew in the second edition. He thought it 
quite right to speak of the Church of England as being 
" in bondage," working " in chains," and " teaching with 
the stammering lips of ambiguous formularies " ; and he 
actually affirmed that " until English Churchmen generally 
sympathise " with Newman in such language, " I see no 
chance of our Church assuming her true position in 
Christendom, or of the mitigation of our present unhappy 
divisions. " li There appears," said Keble, " to be some 
chance of an authoritative prohibition of the view [of in 
terpreting the Articles], which not this Tract only, but a 
whole army of writers, new and old, recommend : and 
it becomes a serious question, what ought to be the line 
of conduct adopted in such case by persons holding that 
view, and concerned in any way with subscription to the 
Articles." 5 This important question Keble discusses at 
considerable length. 

"Suppose, i.e." he asks, "that not the Heads of Houses, but the 

1 The Case of Catholic Subscription to the Thirty-Nine Articles Considered. 
By the Rev. John Keble. " London : 1841. Not Published," p. 6. 

2 Ibid. p. 10. 3 Ibid. p. 12. 


Academical Body in Convocation assembled, had determined that 
interpretations such as have been now (not for the first time), sug 
gested, evade rather than explain the Articles, and are inconsistent 
with the duty of receiving and teaching them in good faith, to which 
the University, by express statute, binds her Tutors and other 
members ; how would a College Tutor (to take the simplest case first) 
have to act under such circumstances, supposing him convinced that 
the condemned view is the right one? Would it not be a plain 
breach of a human trust, if he used the authority committed to him 
for the purpose of teaching that view ? and of a still higher trust, if, in 
compliance with the academical law, he forbore to inculcate it ? " l 

To this question Keble s very proper answer was : 
" Such persons would have been met at every turn by the 
recorded sentence of the University against them : in them 
it would have been no contumacy, but plain conscientious 
ness, to withdraw from an engagement which they could 
not religiously fulfil." 2 Passing from the Tutors to ordi 
nary members of the University, Keble affirmed that " it 
would be matter of grave inquiry, whether any person, 
adhering to the Articles in the sense pointed out by the 
Trad, could with an unblemished conscience become a 
member of the University, or even, without dispensation, 
continue such. This doubt arises from the acknowledged 
rule of the best casuists, that all oaths and covenants 
imposed by a superior, and especially subscriptions re 
quired to Articles of religion, are to be interpreted by the mind 
and purpose of the parties imposing, and in the sense which 
they intended" According to this important principle, 
issued with the sanction of the leader of the Oxford Move 
ment, no candidate for Ordination could sign the Thirty- 
Nine Articles, when imposed by the Bishop about to ordain 
him, except in the sense held by that Bishop. If this rule 
were adopted by modern Ritualists, many Romanising 
wolves would be kept out of the sheepfold of the Church 
of England. 

Keble proceeded to discuss Clerical subscription to the 
Articles. On this he affirms that " The general principles 

1 The Case of Catholic Stibscription to the Thirty-Nine Articles Considered, 

P- 13- 

- Ibid. p. 1 6. s Ibid. p. 17. 


which regulate Academical subscription must of course be 
applicable to Clerical subscription likewise ; only that all 
cases of conscience assume a deeper and more awful 
interest as they come nearer and nearer to the Most Holy 
Things "i 1 - 

" If a candidate for Holy Orders, or a clerk nominated to any 
dignity or cure, were distinctly warned, by the same authority which 
calls on him to subscribe the Articles, that the Catholic mode of 
interpreting them would be considered as evading their sense, and 
defeating their object j the act of signature would evidently amount 
to a pledge on his part against that mode of interpretation. If, in 
virtue of a preceding signature, he were already exercising his 
ministry, his going on, without protest, to do so, after such warning, 
would virtually come to the same thing : it would be equivalent, as 
I said before, to a continued signature; unless, indeed, he could 
obtain from the imposers express or implied dispensation for his 
own case, which would remove the sin, and, if made public, would 
remove the scandal also. 

" But Clerical Subscription differs from Academical in this im 
portant respect : that it is not quite so easy to determine who are 
the real imposers of it, and what kind of declaration on their part is 
to be regarded as authoritative. Thus far, however, all Catholics 
will be agreed : that a Synodical determination of the Bishops of 
the Church of England, with or without the superadded warrant of 
the State (on whose prerogative in such cases I would refrain from 
here expressing any opinion) would be endued with unquestionable 
authority." 2 

Keble next proceeds to discuss the subject of Canonical 
Obedience to the Bishops ; and here his views, I think, 
would certainly not, as a whole, be acceptable to his 
Ritualistic successors of the present day. If Keble could 
not conscientiously obey his Bishop, he would resign his 
preferments in the Church, and retire into lay communion, 
though he would not secede from the Church of England. 
His words are remarkable, and well worth quoting : 

" Next," he writes, " let it be well weighed how much the Oath 
of Canonical Obedience imports. No pledge can be more solemn 
or direct, than that under which we stand bound reverently to obey 

1 The Case of Catholic Subscription to the Thirty -Nine Articles Considered^ 
p. 25. 2 Ibid. pp. 26, 27. 


our Ordinary, and other chief Ministers, unto whom is committed 
the charge and government over us; following with a glad mind 
and will their godly admonitions, and submitting ourselves to their 
godly judgments This latter clause appears to refer, more espe 
cially, to doctrinal decisions ; and if to any, surely most especially 
to their explanation of the terms of the engagement, to which they 
themselves admitted us : as the Church s agents, it is true, and not 
in any wise by their own independent authority ; yet as deliberative, 
responsible, highly trusted agents, endowed severally with powers 
of more than human origin, to enforce their godly judgments. So 
that it would be a very strong step indeed, and one hardly conceiv 
able, but in a case where the very foundation of the faith was un 
equivocally assailed, for a Catholic priest to go on ministering, when 
he knew that he was violating the conditions on which his Bishop 
would allow him to minister. It would be far different from in 
subordinate conduct here and there, in points of detail : rather his 
whole clerical life would be one continued act of disobedience. Who 
could endure such a burthen? What labour could prosper , what 
blessing be looked for ; under it ? " J 

Keble, of course, was afraid lest the Convocation of 
the University and the Bishops should censure the line of 
argument adopted by Newman in Tract XC., and, therefore, 
in writing his pamphlet he had the possibility of such a 
censure in view. Unfortunately for the cause of Reforma 
tion principles, his fears were groundless. Convocation had 
before it, on February 13, 1845, a proposition to adopt 
substantially the vote of censure passed by the Heads of 
Houses on March 1 6, 1841. It would, in all probability, 
have been carried, were it not that the Proctors (of whom 
the late Dean Church was one), vetoed it. Although most 
of the Bishops in their charges censured Tract XC., no united 
declaration against its mischievous principles was issued by 
the Episcopal Bench. Dr. Pusey issued a bulky pamphlet 
of 217 pages in defence of Tract XC., in which he strongly 
advocated the Reunion of Christendom, both East and 
West. "Who knows," he asked, "but that He who raises us 
up, may purify Rome too, and St. Peter be the type of the 
Church of St. Peter, and her Lord yet cast His gracious look 

1 The Case of Catholic Siibscription to the Thirty-Nine Articles Considered, 
pp. 28, 29. 


upon her, and she weep bitterly her fall; and she, being con 
verted/ strengthen her < brethren/ and deserve to be restored 
to the pre-eminence, which, while she deserved, she had." ] 
Pusey, in this pamphlet, censured many of the corruptions 
of Rome, more especially her worship of the Virgin, and 
the Indulgences granted by the Papal Court. But, as to 
the Tract itself, he declares : " I have felt no doubt, care 
fully and conscientiously examining both editions of the 
Tract, that the meaning in which our friend would have 
them [Thirty-Nine Articles] construed, in conformity and 
subordination to the teaching of the Catholic Church, is 
not only an admissible, but the most legitimate interpreta 
tion of them." 2 

Later on in the year, the Rev. C. P. Golightly, of Oriel 
College, who had been one of the most active workers in 
getting up the agitation against Tract XC., issued a short 
pamphlet of nineteen pages on the subject, in which he 
ably exposed some of Newman s misquotations in the Tract, 
as also the alterations made by him in the second edition. 
It is remarkable that Manning (afterwards Cardinal), who 
had become a High Churchman before Tract XC. was issued, 
never approved of its leading principles. Mr. A. W. Hutton, 
M.A., in his biography of Cardinal Manning, tells us that 
" Manning never got over the dislike he entertained for 
Tract XC. It always seemed to him of doubtful honesty. 
When, in the autumn of 1845, after his return from his 
first visit to Dollinger at Munich, Mr. Gladstone, much 
perturbed by the grave series of secessions from the Church 
of England, asked Manning if any one principle could be 
found that would explain them, the latter said, after reflec 
tion : Yes ; want of truth. At a much later time he said 
that he thought he must have had in his mind the impres 
sion of dishonesty produced by the shifty arguments of 
the last Tract." 3 

In 1845, the Rev. W. Simcox Bricknell, M.A., Incum- 

1 The Articles Treated on in Tract XC. Reconsidered, and their Interpretation 
Vindicated. By the Rev, E. B. Pusey, D.D., p. 183. 

2 Ibid. p. 148. 

8 Cardinal Manning. By Arthur W. Hutton, M.A., p. 252. London: 1894. 



bent of Grove, published a thick volume of 753 pages, 
with the title of The Judgment of the Bishops upon Tractarian 
Theology. It consisted mainly of lengthy extracts from the 
Charges of the Bishops from 1837 to 1842 inclusive, and 
was enriched by many useful notes from the pen of Mr. 
Bricknell himself. From this volume I give the following 
expressions of Episcopal opinion on Tract XC. : 

BISHOP OF HEREFORD (Dr. Musgrave): " Nothing better, in 
fact, as all such persons must well know, than sophistry and evasion, 
could be brought in support of such a thesis. And certainly both 
are employed in the Tract, in as ample measure as any one could be 
disposed to anticipate." * 

" In fact, throughout the whole Tract, but more especially upon 
this point [the { attempt to distinguish between the Romish doctrine, 
as established by the Decrees of the Council of Trent, and " the 
authoritative teaching" of the Church of Rome at the time ], the 
dishonest casuistry to which the Jesuits have given a name, is 
employed upon a scale to which it would be hard to find a parallel, 
except in the more notorious of their own writings." 2 

usal of the Remarks upon the Thirty-Nine Articles has filled me with 
astonishment and concern. The ostensible object of this Tract is 
to show that a person adopting the doctrines of the Council of Trent, 
with the single exception of the Pope s Supremacy, might sincerely 
and conscientiously sign the Articles of the Church of England. 
But the real object at which the writer seems to be labouring, is to 
prove that the differences in doctrine which separate the Churches of 
England and Rome will, upon examination, vanish. Upon this 
point much ingenuity, and, I am forced to add, much sophistry is 
exerted, and I think exerted in vain." 8 

BISHOP OF EXETER (Dr. Phillpotts) : "The tone of the Tract,*.* 
it respects our own Church, is offensive and indecent ; as it regards the 
Reformation and our Reformers, absurd, as well as incongruous and 
unjust. Its principles of interpreting our Articles I cannot but 
deem most unsound ; the reasoning with which it supports its prin 
ciples, sophistical ; the averments on which it founds its reasoning, 
at variance with recorded facts." 4 

Bishops } p. 81. 
& Ibid. p. 85. 
Ibid p. 537. 
4 Ibid. p. 547. 


"This is by far the most daring attempt ever yet made by a 
Minister of the Church of England to neutralise the distinctive 
doctrines of our Church, and to make us symbolise with Rome." 1 

BISHOP OF LLANDAFF (Dr. Copleston) : " To speak of the 
language of the Articles as being capable of two or more senses, and 
to teach that the subscriber may therefore take them in his own 
sense, knowing at the same time that the authority which requires 
his assent understands them in another, is surely a dishonest course, 
tending to corrupt the conscience, and to destroy all confidence 
between man and man." 2 

BISHOP OF LONDON (Dr. Blomfield) : " The endeavour to give a 
Tridentine colouring to the Articles of Religion agreed upon by the 
Council of London in 1562, and to extenuate the essential differences 
between the two Churches, is a ground of no unreasonable alarm to 
those whose bounden duty it is to banish and drive away all erro 
neous and strange doctrines, and therefore to guard against the 
insinuation into our Church of any one of those false opinions which 
she has once solemnly repudiated. It is one of the methods by 
which the Court of Rome has before sought to beguile the people of 
this country of their common sense. Bishop Stillingfleet quotes a 
letter of advice given to a Romish agent, as to the best way of 
managing the Papal interest in England upon the King s restoration : 
the third head of which is : 

" To make it appear, underhand, how near the doctrine, worship, 
and discipline of the Church of England comes to us (of Rome) ; 
at how little distance her Common Prayer is from our Mass ; and 
that the wisest and ablest men of that way (the Anglican) are so 
moderate, that they would willingly come over to us, or at least meet 
us half way. Hereby the more staid men will become more odious, 
and others will run out of all religion for fear of Popery. " 3 

1 Bricknell s Judgment of the Bishops, p. 550. 

a Ibid. p. 559. 

8 Ibid. pp. 563, 564. 


Mr. Golightly s letters to the Standard His serious charges against 
Ward and Bloxam Palmer of Magdalen anathematises Protes 
tantism Startling revelations Mr. Ambrose Phillipps de Lisle 
A secret Papal emissary to the Oxford Romanisers De Lisle inti 
mate with and trusted by the Oxford leaders Newman s Corre 
spondence with De Lisle De Lisle hopes to introduce some foreign 
Theologians to his Oxford friends He promises to be "prudent 
and reserved" Bloxam s fear of publicity De Lisle s extraordi 
nary letter to his wife The Oxford men wish " to come to an under 
standing with the Pope at once" Their proposals to be sent to the 
Pope The Fathers of Charity A startling suggestion Cordial 
meetings at Oxford between the Tractarians and Romanists Nego 
tiations with Wiseman and Rome Wiseman visits Oxford Has an 
interview with Newman Wiseman writes to Rome for secret in 
struction and guidance He desires to become "the organ of inter 
course" between Rome and Oxford A secret conspiracy De Lisle s 
letter to Lord Shrewsbury It is necessary "to blind" the Low 
Church party "Throwing dust in the eyes of Low Churchmen" 
"Unpleasant disclosures" in the papers " A holy reserve " Ward s 
double dealing Remains in the Church of England " to bring many 
towards Rome " The ultimate aim " submission to Rome." 

EVENTS of great interest were taking place while the con 
troversy as to Tract XC. was at its height, of which the 
English public knew at the time but little or nothing. It 
is true the veil was partly lifted by the Rev. C. P. 
Golightly, in the columns of the Standard, but his revela 
tions were laughed to scorn by his opponents, as utterly 
unworthy of credit. Time, however, has served to prove 
that Mr. Golightly was a truthful witness, for the accuracy 
of his exposure of Tractarian tactics and underground 
proceedings, has been amply proved by the biographies 
of Cardinal Wiseman, Mr. Ambrose Phillipps de Lisle, the 
Rev. W. G. Ward, and others. In a letter to the Standard, 
dated November 12, 1841, over the signature of "A 
Master of Arts," Mr. Golightly brought charges of Roman- 



ising against certain members of the University, whose 
names he did not give ; thereupon he was challenged by 
a " D.D. of the University of Oxford/ and by the Rev. 
George Stanley Faber, Master of Sherburn Hospital, and 
himself a decided Protestant, to give his own name to the 
public, and also the names of those against whom he had 
brought such serious charges. In reply to these chal 
lenges, Mr. Golightly, over his own proper signature, wrote 
another letter to the Standard, dated November 26th, in 
which, after thanking those who had challenged him for 
doing so, he continued : 

" My statement, in allusion to a paragraph which had appeared in 
the Morning Post^ was as follows : 

" * I do not insinuate, but I assert, that there is good reason for 
supposing that there are about ten Members of this University, who, 
instead of fighting "under their proper banner," have hoisted the 
flag of Anglicanism, and, under those false colours, are taking advan 
tage of their respective positions, as Fellows of Colleges and Clergy 
men of the Established Church, to propagate " Romanism," and 
oppose "primitive views." 

" I likewise made a statement respecting the conduct of a Fellow 
of Balliol, and a Fellow of Magdalen, which I shall repeat in the 
course of my letter. . . . 

" The first witness that I shall cite is the Rev. W. Ward, Fellow 
of Balliol College, and an intimate friend of Mr. Newman s, who, in 
the course of the present month, told a friend of mine, opposed to 
him in opinions, and not in confidential conversation, that a certain 
party in this place [Oxford University] might now be considered to 
be divided into disciples of Mr. Newman and disciples of Dr. Pusey 
the latter opposed, the former no longer opposed to Rome. . . . 

" I now repeat the assertion in my former letter, that the Rev. 
W. Ward, Fellow of Balliol, was a visitor of Dr. Wiseman s, at 
Oscott, during the last long vacation (I do not determine the length 
of his visit), and that the Rev. J. Bloxam, Fellow of Magdalen, 
was the individual who introduced Mr. Sibthorp to Dr. Wiseman. 
Previously to his visit to Oscott, Mr. Ward had expressed opinions 
which induced the Master of Balliol to deprive him of his Mathe 
matical Lectureship, and the Bishop of London to forbid his offici 
ating in his diocese. 

"I have also to inform the public, that a Roman Catholic 
Bishop has been staying at the Mitre Inn, at Oxford, and receiving 


visits from several Members of the University. Upon communi 
cating this fact to an individual in authority, I found that he had 
already learned, from other sources of information, that one cer 
tainly, perhaps two Romish Bishops had been returning the visits 
of their friend or friends. . . . 

" After what I have written, your readers will not be surprised 
at the following sayings and doings of some of the more extravagant 
of the party. A Fellow of Exeter has expressed his belief, that seven 
years hence the Churches of England and Rome will be reunited ; 
some cross themselves in public worship, others make genuflections, 
others openly praise the Jesuits, talk of Saint Ignatius Loyola, have 
plans for taming refractory Bishops, and talk over what they shall 
do, in their day of triumph, with the clergy who reject their views." 1 

The only members of the Romanising party who re 
plied to Mr. Golightly s charges were Ward himself, one 
of the accused parties, and the Rev. William Palmer of 
Magdalen College, who must not be confounded with 
the Rev. William Palmer of Worcester College. Ward 
frankly admitted that he had paid a visit to Oscott, but 
he did not add that it was his second visit 2 Golightly 
apparently did not know that there had been a previous 
visit. Ward challenged the accuracy of two or three 
of Golightly s statements, yet substantially he admitted 
that they were correct. In acknowledging that he had 
paid a visit to the Roman Catholic College at Oscott, he 
explained that he " carefully abstained from taking part 
in any of their services " ; 3 yet at the same time he 
admitted " the very favourable impression produced on 
my mind by all that I saw there." 4 

Mr. Palmer, who, after several years spent in vain 
efforts to promote Reunion with the Eastern Churches, 
afterwards became a Roman Catholic, replied to Mr. 
Golightly in a published Letter, which contained some 
statements which created quite a sensation : " I trust," 
said Mr. Palmer, "others have still stronger grounds for 

1 Correspondence Illustrative of the Actual State of Oxford with Reference to 
Tractarianism, pp. 8-13. Oxford : 1842. 

2 William George Ward and the Oxford Movement , p. 191. 

3 Correspondence Illustrative of the Actual State of Oxford, p. 20. 

4 Ibid. p. 19. 


viewing and representing it [the Church of England] as a 
branch of the One Catholic and Apostolic Church, essen 
tially opposed to the principle of general Protestantism, 
and essentially one with all other Churches of kindred 
origin, both Greek and Latin." l 

"Certainly I am for no middle ways," continued Mr. Palmer, 
" as you will understand when I tell you plainly, that for myself, I 
utterly reject and anathematise the principle of Protestantism as a 
heresy, with all its forms, sects, or denominations. And if the 
Church of England should ever unhappily profess herself to be a 
form of Protestantism (which may God of His infinite mercy forbid !) 
then I would reject and anathematise the Church of England, and 
would separate myself from her immediately as from a human sect, 
without giving Protestants any unnecessary trouble to procure my 
expulsion." 2 

" If to desire the restoration of unity with those Churches, and 
above ail with the Church of Rome itself, be Popery, then I for one 
am a Papist from the very bottom of my soul ; but I beg you to 
take notice at the same time that my Popery is of a kind which 
takes in not only the Churches now in actual communion with 
Rome, but also the Eastern Catholic Churches, and the British, if 
their Protestant members will allow me still to call them Catholic. 
In conclusion, I once more publicly profess myself a Catholic and 
a member of the Catholic Church, and say anathema to the prin 
ciples of Protestantism (which I regard as identical with the principle 
of Dissent), and to all its forms, sects, and denominations, especially 
to those of the Lutherans and Calvinists, and British and American 
Dissenters. Likewise to all persons, who knowingly and willingly, 
and understanding what they do> shall assert either for themselves or 
for the Church of England the principle of Protestantism, or maintain 
the Church of England to have one and the same common religion 
with any or all of the various forms and sects of Protestantism, or 
shall communicate themselves in the temples of the Protestant sects, 
or give the communion to their members, or go about to establish 
any intercommunion between our Church and them, otherwise than 
by bringing them, in the first instance, to renounce their errors and 
promise a true obedience for the future to the entire faith and 
discipline of the Catholic and Apostolical Episcopate to all such I 
say, Anathema ! " 3 

1 A Letter to the Rev. C. P. Golightly. By William Palmer, M.A., Fellow 
and Tutor of Magdalen College, p. 7. Oxford : Parker. 1842. 

2 Ibid. pp. 9, 10. 3 2 bid. pp. 12, 13. 


I may here be permitted to point out that the argu 
ment against the Protestantism of the Church of England, 
based on the omission of the word " Protestant " from her 
formularies, is valueless to the Ritualists. The word on 
which they pride themselves is "Catholic," which of course 
is also claimed by all true Protestants. Yet this much- 
prized word " Catholic" is never found in the New Testament. 
Would the Ritualists, I may ask, think me justified in 
asserting that the " Catholic " religion is not to be found 
in the New Testament, because the word "Catholic" is not 
found there ? I am sure they would never allow that my 
argument was valid. They would reply that, if the word 
" Catholic " was not there, the thing itself was there from 
beginning to end, and that therefore the New Testament 
teaches the Catholic religion. But, surely, the argument 
which the Ritualist would think good for himself, is equally 
valid for the Protestant Churchman ? We argue that if 
the word " Protestant " is not to be found in the Book of 
Common Prayer, the thing itself is there in abundance 
from cover to cover. In their assertions of Protestant 
doctrines, and in their protests against Rome and Roman 
ism, the Book of Common Prayer and the Thirty-Nine 
Articles are amongst the most strongly Protestant docu 
ments in the whole world. The historical argument in 
favour of the Protestantism of the Church of England is 
ably brought out in a valuable pamphlet by the late Dr. 
Fleming, entitled The Church of England is Protestant? 

We must go back to the month of March 1841 for the 
origin of the Romanising work in part only revealed by Mr. 
Golightly. Some startling revelations of what then took 
place have recently been published in the Life and Letters of 
Ambrose Phillipps de Lisle, who in later life changed his name. 
In 1841 he was known as Mr. Ambrose Lisle Phillipps. 
He was, as already stated, a county squire residing at 
Grace Dieu Manor, Leicestershire, of considerable wealth, 
who in his boyhood had seceded to the Church of Rome, 

1 The Church of England is Protestant : Historical Testimony to Her Pro 
testantism. By J. P. Fleming, D.C.L., pp. 26. London : Church Association 


in 1825, when he was only sixteen years of age. From 
the birth of the Oxford Movement young Mr. Phillipps 
took the deepest interest in its proceedings, expecting 
great things for the Church of Rome from its operations. 
To help on the Oxford Movement became the great object 
of his life. Early in 1841 he became, in reality, though 
not in name, Bishop Wiseman s secret emissary to the 
leaders of the Movement residing in the University of 
Oxford ; and the medium of communicating their wishes 
and hopes, through Wiseman, to the Pope himself. His 
biography, written by Mr. E. S. Purcell, author of the Life 
of Cardinal Manning, is very open indeed in its surprising 
revelations. Mr. Purcell tells us that : 

" The personal influence of so zealous a Catholic as De Lisle, his 
sympathy with the Movement and reverence for its leaders, was 
recognised and felt at Oxford. He was on intimate terms with 
many of them, with whom he corresponded fully and freely; he was 
trusted by their illustrious Leader, who in many letters of the highest 
interest discussed the points at issue between the Anglican Church 
and the Church of Rome. With no other Catholic was Newman 
on terms of such intimacy ; to no one else did he open his heart so fully 
or explain so candidly the motives which guided his conduct or line 
of action as Leader of the Movement. To no one did he disclose 
more unreservedly perhaps than to De Lisle the difficulties which 
stood in the way of reunion, or of the restoration of unity of faith. 
For Newman it ivas easier perhaps to explain to a Catholic than to 
his immediate disciples the necessity of restraint or of caution imposed 
upon him by external circumstances : by fear, on the one hand, of 
exciting in the University Protestant suspicions ; of arousing the 
ire of the Bishops ; or, on the other, of giving scandal to the more 
timid among his own disciples by too open an avowal of Catholic 

This statement shows the importance to be attached 
to De Lisle s work at Oxford. Newman trusted him 
more, and more fully opened up to him his secret plans, 
than to either Pusey or Keble, or any other of his friends 
in the Church of England. And it is evident to any one 
reading De Lisle s biography that he was trusted and 
consulted by most of the other more prominent members 

1 Life and Letters of Ambrose Phillipps de Lisle, vol. i. p. 198. 


of Newman s followers. One of the chief agents in 
preparing the way for De Lisle s early visits to Oxford was 
the Rev. J. R. Bloxam, then Newman s Curate, who was 
most anxious to promote the Reunion of England and 
Rome, but who remained within the Church of England 
until his death nearly fifty years later. 

De Lisle was first brought into intimate relations with 
the leaders of the Oxford Movement early in 1841. On 
the first Sunday in Lent of that year he sent word to 
Bloxam that he hoped to visit Oxford in Easter week : 

" I hope," he told Bloxam, " to be the means of introducing to 
Oxford some foreign Theologians who, I assure you, thoroughly 
appreciate the Catholic Movement there, who admire your admir 
able treatises, who fully understand the difficulty of your position, 
who see that humanly speaking the great result to which we look 
must be distant, the fruit of much labour, much patience, much 
tribulation, but who feel that God holds in his hands the hearts of 
men, and that to humble, earnest, believing prayer he will refuse 
nothing. In working out our grand object you will find me, and 
those whom I hope in a second visit to present to the acquaintance 
both of yourself and your friends, prudent and reserved ; in fact we 
shall put ourselves unreservedly in your hands our only object is to 
serve you for the love of Jesus Christ, and for the love of our Catholic 
Mother." * 

Newman at this time entered into confidential corre 
spondence with De Lisle, and also with the Rev. Dr. 
Russell, of Maynooth College. The latter correspondence 
was first published in the Irish Monthly for September 
1892. Of Dr. Russell, Newman says, " He had, perhaps, 
more to do with my conversion than any one else." 
Newman saw great difficulties in the way of Reunion. 
The lack of personal holiness in the Roman Church was 
one difficulty ; the existence of Protestantism in the Angli 
can Church was another. "This I feel," he wrote on 
February 25, 1841, " most strongly and cannot conceal it, 
viz., that while Rome is what she is union is impossible. 
That we too must change I cannot deny." 3 Mr. Bloxam 

1 Life and Letters of Ambrose Phillipps de Lisle, vol. i. pp. 203, 204. 

2 Newman s Apologia, p. 317. 

3 Life and Letters of Ambrose Phillipps de Lisle, vol. i. p. 205. 


was fearful lest the public should learn what was going 
on, and therefore he wrote to De Lisle, shortly before 
the latter gentleman s visit to Oxford : " Let me beg 
of you to consider as most confidential and private 
whatever may have passed between us. Much mischief 
has been done by the mention of names." ] Mr. Purcell 
says that " Bloxam was the most cautious and timid of 
men, unwilling to commit himself, a living and moving 
secret." 2 

At length De Lisle paid his long expected visit to 
Oxford, and was received with open arms by the Roman- 
isers. To his wife, on May 5th, he related with great joy 
what up to that date he had seen and heard : 

"You can have no idea," wrote De Lisle, "to what an extent 
the Catholic Movement in this University has gone ; it is impossible 
to judge of it by printed publications. One thing astonished and 
delighted me. They have lately printed (but not published} a beauti 
ful translation of the Roman Breviary in English, with everything pre 
cisely as it is in the Latin. The Hail Mary full length, the Confiteor, 
the Salve Regina, Sancta Maria succurre mzseris, &c., with not an 
expression changed ! ! ! Is not this wonderful ? Nothing can be 
more determined than they are to reunite their Church to the 
Catholic ; but they will not hear of individuals joining us from them, 
though they wish us to convert as many Dissenters as possible ; and 
they are very glad to hear of Dr. Gentili s doings in that way even 
I think they do not object to our converting such of the Church of 
England as do not hold Catholic views, but they deprecate any 
noise about it, and above all they deprecate anything like warfare 
against the Church of England herself. . . . MANY HERE WOULD 

CILIATION OF THEIR WHOLE CHURCH. This is to be taken into 
solemn consideration ; I proposed to them last night that Father 
Rosmini should come to England and visit Oxford with me with a 
view to conveying their sentiments to the Pope himself. The proposi 
tion was well received; but nothing is settled, nor will be yet." 3 

1 Life and Letters of Ambrose Phillipps de Lisle, vol. i. p. 216. 

2 Ibid. p. 244. 

3 Ibid pp. 248, 249. 


The startling expression of opinion, which I have 
here printed in capitals, seems almost incredible. " It is 
difficult to conceive," says Mr. Purcell, in commenting on 
it, " that any of his [De Lisle s] friends at Oxford of sober 
judgment could have seriously discussed such a plan as 
that of being in active communion with the Pope, and at 
the same time remaining in the Church of England." 1 
But he does not deny that it was seriously discussed ; on 
the contrary, he evidently thinks such a discussion really 
did take place, for he continues thus : " But we must 
remember that the Queen herself is always a member of 
the Scotch Kirk when over the Border, and this without 
scandal or question of propriety. 2 From the standpoint 
of the Roman theologian this would, of course, be abso 
lutely unwarrantable, but from the English standpoint of 
habitual compromise in matters of religion it is not after all 
so very startling, once granted the High Church preamble 
that the Established Church is essentially Catholic and 
only accidentally Protestant. And De Lisle s whole plan 
of action was to foster and encourage every Catholic 
tendency and move amongst Anglicans, leaving it to the 
grace of God to correct and harmonise inconsistencies 
and shortcomings." 

In accordance with the principle here laid down by 
his biographer, De Lisle did " foster and encourage " the 
traitorous wishes of these Tractarians. Very naturally 
Mr. Purcell tries to whitewash his own communion, by 
declaring that " from the standpoint of the Roman theo 
logian this would, of course, be absolutely unwarrantable " ; 
yet, for all this whitewashing, the startling fact remains 
that the proposal was made, first of all, not by the Trac 
tarians, but by a Roman Catholic layman, even De Lisle 
himself ; and it looks very much as though the Jesuitical 
proposal he made was fostered and actively assisted by 
no less a " Roman theologian " than Bishop Wiseman ! 

In proof of this I call attention to the following facts. 
Mr. Wilfrid Ward, the Roman Catholic biographer of his 

1 Life and Letters of Ambrose Phillipps de Lisle, vol. i. p. 249. 

2 But she is not secretly a member of the Scotch Kirk. 


father, the Rev. W. G. Ward, after relating how Mr. 
Bloxam and De Lisle (or Phillipps) first met by accident, 
tells us that thereupon 

"A friendship was struck up, and Mr. Bloxam invited him 
[Phillipps] to Oxford. Here he met Mr. Ward. Zeal for the Re 
union of Churches was on both sides a bond of sympathy, and the 
two men sat up half the night on their first introduction discussing 
the prospects of Christendom. Mr. Ward was invited to meet a 
party of Catholics at Grace Dieu, to visit Oscott, and to see the 
Cistercian Monastery of Mount St. Bernard s. Informal communi 
cations were also opened with Bishop Wiseman. The conditions of 
reunion were discussed. The schemes proposed were Utopian, and 
many who were eager for them have in the event remained staunch 
Anglicans. But they were a witness to the irritation caused by the 
action of the Heads and Bishops, and to its tendency to drive men 
towards Rome. Mr. Ward himself, while deeply interested in the 
subject, was persistent in his opposition to any sudden step, and for 
a time at least urged that members of both Churches should confine 
their energies to the reform of the abuses which disfigured each. . . . 
Mr. Phillipps had URGED that the Fathers of Charity, the Order of 
the great Italian Reformer Antonio Rosmini, then represented in 
England by the excellent and pious Father Gentili, SHOULD OPEN 
rules to their position and antecedents"^- 

Now this was, no doubt, a very daring proposal of De 
Lisle s. It was nothing less than that the Tractarians 
should at once become Roman Catholics, and thus, accord 
ing to his scheme (to quote again his letter to his wife on 
May 5th), they would " come to an understanding with 
the Pope at once, that so they might be in active com 
munion with him, and yet remain in the Church of England to 
labour for the reconciliation of their whole Church." Mr. 
Edwin De Lisle, himself a Roman Catholic, who edited 
Purcell s Life of his father, says : " From the high Con 
tinuity point of view, however, there does not appear to be 
any valid reason why clergymen upon becoming reconciled 
to the Holy See should resign their livings. They would 
only be reverting to the position of such admired Church- 

1 William George Ward and the Oxford Movement, pp. 190, 191. 


men as Archbishop Theodore, Stephen Langton, Grosteste, 
Alfred the Great, or Edward the Confessor. It would pro 
bably be the duty of their Bishops to deprive them." 1 Mr. 
Wilfrid Ward says that the scheme " resulted only in 
opportunities for cordial meetings between the Oxonians 
and the friends of Mr. Phillipps and Father Gentili. The 
idea itself met with no encouragement from Newman or 
from the responsible leaders of the party." : It is evident to 
any one who reads De Lisle s Life that he, at any rate, was 
under the impression that his scheme was approved by 
some of the responsible leaders, though not the most pro 
minent of them. It will be remembered that, on the first 
Sunday of Lent in this year, De Lisle promised Bloxam : 
" I hope myself to be the means of introducing to Oxford 
some foreign Theologians." This Father Gentili was one 
of them. Again, on May 3rd, during his interview with 
these Oxford conspirators, De Lisle proposed to them 
" that Father Rosmini should come to England and visit 
Oxford with me, with a view to conveying their sentiments 
to the Pope." Rosmini, it seems, did not go to Oxford at 
that time, but the representative of the Order of which he 
was head (the Institute of Charity), did go to Oxford, and 
Mr. Wilfrid Ward shows him to us as present at " cordial 
meetings " between the Tractarian conspirators and De 
Lisle. No doubt they discussed together De Lisle s pro 
posal that this Roman Catholic Order of Monks should 
"open their Order at once to the Oxford School." Ward 
seems to have been in no hurry to adopt the scheme, 
though he certainly did not object to it, for later on in the 
year he wrote to De Lisle, on October 28th : "All this 
being so, your kind communication about the Order of 
Charity is of less certain and immediate importance than it 
otherwise might be ; though, of course, it might become of the 
most pressing interest any single day." 

But, as we have seen, the Oxford Tractarians and Father 
Gentili were not the only persons consulted. " Informal 

1 Life and Letters of Ambrose Phillipps de Lisle, vol. i. p. 284, note. 
z William George Ward and the Oxford Movement, p. 191. 
8 Ibid. p. 195. 


communications were opened with Bishop Wiseman." 
These were no ordinary schemes that were proposed to 
him, but were of a most extraordinary kind. " The 
schemes proposed," says Mr. W. Ward, " were Utopian." 
How did Wiseman treat these " Utopian " schemes ? Did 
he reject them as monstrous and impossible, as embodying 
proposals the Church of Rome could never assent to ? 
There is nothing to show that he acted in this way. On 
the contrary, all the evidence tends to prove that he be 
came a party to the conspiracy, and gave it his active 
assistance. Mr. Purcell states that : 

"In these discussions at Oxford Bishop Wiseman took a lively 
interest. But since his conversations with the Oxford men were of a 
confidential character, De Lisle took care in his communications with 
Bishop Wiseman not to divulge the more intimate facts or names which 
had been given to him, but gave a general purport or outline of his inter 
views. Mr. Bloxam was especially careful to warn De Lisle against 
letting the fact be known that they were holding direct communications ivith 
Catholics. Bishop Wiseman was fully alive to the value of personal 
influence, from De Lisle s signal success with the Oxford Divines, 
and gladly accepted his offer of a personal introduction to some of the 
Oxford Leaders. Bishop Wiseman had already expressed his anxious 
desire to be in communication with some of the Oxford Divines, but 
as he wrote to De Lisle he feared embarrassing them by any inter 
course, as, should it be known, it would be immediately thrown in 
their faces." * 

De Lisle sent word to Bloxam that Wiseman desired 
to visit Oxford, but Bloxam was timid about it. He said 
that to himself the visit of " so learned and celebrated a 
theologian " would be " personally delightful " ; 2 but he 
thought, apparently, that it would scarcely be discreet. 
Failing to gain Bloxam s consent to the proposed visit, 
De Lisle informed Newman of Wiseman s desire to visit 
Oxford and to meet him there. But Newman s subtle 
mind led him to suggest a way out of the difficulty, which 
is thus described by Mr. Purcell : " Newman having 
a grave objection to receiving Catholics in the University, 
especially a Catholic of such eminence as Bishop Wise- 

1 Life and Letters of Ambrose Phillipps de Lisle, vol. i. p. 260. 

2 Ibid. p. 261. 


man, proposed meeting in the city of Oxford." 1 Accord 
ingly it was arranged that Wiseman should visit Oxford, 
and there meet Newman ; not, however, in the University, 
but in the city! "The meeting of two such men," con 
tinues Mr. Purcell, " as the leader of the Oxford Move 
ment and the representative champion of the Catholic 
cause, was an event which appealed to the hearts of both 
men. Each was frank, candid, and outspoken. Without, 
however, entering into confidential relations, Wiseman 
left a favourable impression on Newman s mind." 2 It 
seems that during this visit Wiseman had an interview 
with Dr. Pusey. Writing to Lord Shrewsbury, on May 
6th, De Lisle remarks : " I hope Bishop Wiseman was 
not rude in his manner towards Dr. Pusey the other day, 
if he was, he will have done more to keep hundreds of 
Anglicans (I speak advisedly) back than all my courtesy 
and charity towards them has done." 3 

But before his visit to Oxford Wiseman had sent to 
Rome full particulars of what was going on. Referring 
to the end of April 1841, his biographer says that : 
"Wiseman s sanguine temperament was now fired with 
hopes which those who knew Newman well would not 
have encouraged. His next plan was to communicate 
further with the Holy See through his old friend Cardinal 
Mai, and obtain instructions with a view to a possibly imme 
diate reconciliation of Newman and his friends to Rome" 4 
Earlier in the month of April, on Good Friday (the Qth), 
Wiseman had announced his intention of writing to Rome 
on this subject. There was no need to write to Rome for 
" instructions for a possibly immediate reconciliation " of the 
Tractarians, if that reconciliation were to be of the ordinary 
kind. Wiseman knew very well how to receive perverts 
from the Church of England into the Church of Rome, and 
required no " instructions " on such a very simple matter. 
But we can understand that he would very much need 
" instructions " how to act for " an immediate reconcilia- 

1 Life and Letters of Ambrose Phillipps de Lisle, vol. i. p. 262. 

2 Ibid. p. 262. 3 Ibid. p. 280. 
4 Life and Times of Cardinal Wiseman, vol. i. p. 391. 


tion" with Rome on the lines laid down by De Lisle in 
his letter to his wife. Only the Pope could grant the 
Tractarians permission to be " in active communion with 
him, and yet remain in the Church of England to labour 
for the reconciliation of their whole Church " ; only the 
Pope could facilitate De Lisle s proposal that the " Fathers 
of Charity " should " open their Order at once to the Oxford 
School, and adapt its rules to their position and ante 
cedents." What else could Wiseman have had in view 
than some such secret scheme as this, when he wrote as 
follows to De Lisle, on Good Friday : 

" I feel that the state of things in England ought to be made 
known to the Holy Father. On these grounds I have thought of 
writing a full account of all that is going forward, to one of the dis- 
creetest members of the S. College, Card. Mai, with a request that 
he will show what I write to none but the Pope. I would not men 
tion names beyond those publicly known, as Newman s, but would 
even suppress his name, when referring to what he has privately 
written. But I will not send off anything till I hear from you, and 
have your permission thus secretly to apply what I know from you 
for the public good in this way. Let me know that the Vicegerent 
of Christ approves of my course and understands my motives, and I 
shall not care for all the world, nor allow differences of opinion to 
check my exertions." 1 

On May 7th, only two days after De Lisle s startling 
letter to his wife, already quoted, Wiseman wrote again to 
him on the same subject, and headed his letter, " Most 
Confidential " : 

" Your last letter has indeed rilled me with consolation, and sin 
cere joy. I shall not fail in a second letter to communicate its con 
tents to the Holy Father through Cardinal Mai. But I foresee that 
it will be almost necessary for me during the vacation to run to Rome. 
Indeed, I think it probable I shall be desired to do so AS ANY 


BE MADE OTHERWISE THAN ORALLY. Moreover, there are too many 
other matters on which it would be advisable to have a more intimate 
communication with the Holy See, and as for myself I feel the serious 

1 Life and Times of Cardinal Wiseman, vol. i. p. 387. 



responsibility of becoming (as I at the same time earnestly desire to 
become) the organ of intercourse between it and our Oxford friends, 
without clear and DISTINCT INSTRUCTIONS, such as I feel cannot be 
satisfactorily given except on full explanations, and BY WORD OF 
MOUTH. Again I should like something to emanate from the Pope 
towards encouraging our views recommending mildness, prayer, 
calling on the Bishops for Reforms, &c., and particularly checking all 
alliance with Dissenters. All this I could probably get done by 
going on the spot, but not otherwise. I have entered on this matter 
to ask you what you think of such a plan no one, of course, must 
know of it. I would go to Paris, and so on to Rome the Bishop 
only knowing my plan. He is now in London, so that if you can 
come over I could see you alone. I must mention that, though I 
have not said anything to him about your last letter, I have found it 
necessary to consult one most prudent person under Confessional 
secrecy, because I find some advice necessary for my own guidance." 1 

Again, we may well ask what could that subject be (if 
not secret reception into the Church of Rome) any com 
munication as to which to Rome was "too delicate to be 
made otherwise than orally " ; and on which " distinct 
instructions " could only be given satisfactorily by the 
i( Holy See," and " by word of mouth " ? It seems beyond 
doubt, too, that Wiseman saw nothing morally wrong in 
such an act of deception, for he actively helped the scheme 
on which De Lisle had at heart, and even thought it pos 
sible that the Pope would grant the permission so earnestly 
desired. Who, I may well ask, can reasonably blame 
Protestants, now that so much has been revealed by the 
Romanists themselves, for taking this view of this secret 
Conspiracy to bring back England to Rome by unworthy 
and Jesuitical methods ? Of course Wiseman would have 
preferred that these Tractarian Divines should publicly join 
the Church of Rome there and then ; but if they would 
not come over in that open way, then some other course 
must be adopted. But whether De Lisle s plans were 
actually sanctioned at Rome is more than we can definitely 
say. If they were adopted, however, we may be quite sure 
that not the slightest trace of it would be permitted to find 

1 Life and Letters of Ambrose de Lzsfe, vol. i. p. 255. Life and Times of 
Cardinal Wiseman, vol. i. pp. 391, 392. 


its way into any Roman Catholic biography of the present 
time. The marvel is that so much has been allowed to 
come out into the light of day ; but I have very little 
doubt that the authorities of the Papacy in England are 
far from pleased at the revelations made public in the 
Life and Letters of Ambrose Phillipps de Lisle. What has 
appeared should certainly open the eyes of Englishmen, 
and make them anxious to know what is going on under 
neath the surface at the present time. Negotiations with 
Rome have been going on, at intervals, ever since 1841, 
and for all we know we may, at the present moment, be 
sleeping on the brink of a volcano, which may burst forth 
at any time, casting spiritual desolation and death around. 
There were two other prominent Roman Catholics to 
whom the secret proceedings going on at Oxford were 
partly revealed by De Lisle, viz., Lord Shrewsbury and 
Cardinal Acton. To the former he wrote on May 30, 
1841, clearly revealing the Jesuitical cunning of his 
Tractarian friends : 

" I have been," wrote De Lisle, " for some time now engaged in 
close correspondence with some of the leaders of the Catholic party 
at Oxford, to which I can only allude in general terms, as it is 
strictly confidential ; it has, however, been communicated by me to 
our dear friend Bishop Wiseman (who perfectly concurs with me in 
everything) for the purpose of being in the strictest secrecy forwarded 
to Cardinal Mai, to be by his Eminence communicated to the Holy 
Father, and to no one else upon any account whatever. As I said, I 
cannot at present enter into particulars, but of this you may rest 
assured, that the reunion of the Churches is certain. Mr. Newman 
has lately received the adhesion of several hundreds of the Clergy : 
this is publicly known, and therefore I may state it. Meanwhile the 
Dissenting party is on the alert, and though they are by no means 
aware of the extent to which things have gone, they are apprehensive 
of something : and as they are joined, politically at least, by the Low 
Church Party, WE FIND IT NECESSARY TO BLIND THEM, the more so 
as we are not ready to act yet, and probably shall not be for the 
next three years at earliest. This will account for the great stress 
still laid by the Oxford men on practical abuses supposed to exist in 
the communion of the Catholic Church : not that I mean to say 
they do not feel what they state in reference to these (for I know 


that even they are moved by old prejudices), but feeling as they do, 
they put it forward more prominently perhaps than they otherwise 



" I am very glad you are coming back to England next year. I 
assure you, if things go on as I expect, you will be wanted then. 
Meanwhile I beseech you to give us all the assistance you can. 
Urge at Rome the necessity of immense prudence and forbearance, 
to do everything to encourage, not to damp ; not to call upon these 
men to quit their own communion to join ours; but to proceed on 
courageously with their holy and glorious intention of reconciling their 
Church to ours ; remembering that this involves the reconciliation 
of the Kingdom, of the Aristocracy with all its wealth and power, of 
the Nation. A false step would spoil all, would produce a Protestant 
reaction, and would defeat the hopes of the Holy See for another 
century. Any use you like to make of this letter, you are perfectly 
welcome to make : I have said nothing that can commit any indi 
vidual; and yet I have said what would have weight in preparing 
men s minds. If you like to read it to the Father General of the 
Jesuits, you can" x 

In a very long letter to Cardinal Acton, dated " Feast 
of the Conversion, 1842," De Lisle explained all that had 
gone on in Oxford down to that time, then over a year 
after the appearance of Tract XC. He informs the Cardinal 
that " until quite within the last three weeks, owing to the 
conversions of Mr. Sibthorp and others, the individuals I 
allude to [the Leaders of the Oxford Movement] felt it 
both prudent and right to suspend intercourse for a while 
with either myself or any other Catholics, the more so as 
many unpleasant disclosures had been made in newspapers? 
. . . Now, however, as that intercourse has been renewed 
within the last few days, I may have it in my power to 
give your Eminence some intelligence of a consoling 
nature." ! De Lisle proceeds to relate the steps the 
Tractarians had already taken that " so by God s holy 
grace, she [Church of England] might regain her ancient 
Catholic character," and adds : " In order to bring this 

1 Life and Letters of Ambrose de Lisle, vol. i. pp. 217, 218. 

2 No doubt De Lisle here refers to the " disclosures" made by Mr. Golightly 
in the Standard and otherwise. 

3 Life and Letters of Ambrose de Lisle, vol. i. p. 231. 


about they saw that, as an immense amount of anti- 
Catholic prejudice still existed in the minds of the gene 
rality of Englishmen, it was necessary to bring them on 
by degrees, to communicate religious knowledge to them with a 
holy reserve; hence they judged that the first step was to 
prove that the English Church (however committed to 
Protestant heresy in many respects) was not so Protestant 
as the popular notion of her implied." J Of some of the 
Tractarians, De Lisle said that : " Many again liked 
Catholic ideas, but could not bring themselves to believe 
that Rome alone had any true claim to that glorious title, 
or that their own Church could only regain the title by 
reunion with that Church, which, as the Creed of Pius IV. 
declares, is the Mother and Mistress of all other Churches. 
Those even who saw this great truth the most clearly, saw 
also the danger of proclaiming it too openly as yet, lest the 
public mind should recoil and an anti-Catholic reaction 
take place. Hence, even some of the most advanced (as 
one of them said to me in a letter) thought it right to say 
all they honestly could against Rome, IN ORDER TO BLIND 


yet in a very weak state ; meaning too, when they spoke 
against Rome, not the Church of Rome, not the Council 
of Trent, but certain popular notions or opinions existing 
within the Church, and dwelt upon more or less even 
by her Divines, but yet not vouched for by the Church 
as such ; your Eminence may guess what kind of notions 
the individuals I allude to implied. Nor indeed did 
they even mean to reprobate these popular notions, except 
in a certain sense which might be objectionable. At 
all events, I know several individuals, who by this gradual 
process of the Oxford Divines have been brought to 
the very threshold of truth, and have even crossed her 
borders." In conclusion, De Lisle asserted that: 
11 The devotion of the glorious Mother of God is rapidly 
increasing, great numbers of the Anglicans now keep 
her blessed picture with extreme reverence, putting 
flowers before it, especially on her principal feasts, many 

1 Life arid Letters of Ambrose de Lisle, vol. i. p. 232. z Ibid. p. 233. 


recite her Little Office; a Fellow of Exeter College at 
Oxford burst into tears when speaking of this Dear 
Mother of our Saviour. I am confident that next to 
Jesus they love her above all things. Then they fast most 
wonderfully, like the Fathers of the Desert ; they take the 
Discipline ; lie upon hard boards at night ; rise at midnight 
to recite Matins and Lauds ; spend whole hours in mental 
prayer ; shed floods of tears over their poor fallen Mother, 
the Church of England, earnestly imploring of our Lord 
to restore her, and so their country, to Catholic Unity." ] 

There can be no doubt that the news conveyed to 
Rome by Wiseman and De Lisle filled the Vatican with 
joy, and taxed the resources of the Jesuits to the utter 
most. It is true that De Lisle was unreasonably hopeful ; 
like most enthusiasts he expected great things, and ex 
pected them almost at once. Probably he felt disappointed 
at first ; yet when, in his old age, he looked at the state 
of the Church of England and the progress in it of Roman 
ritual and Roman doctrine, he must have felt that he had 
not laboured in vain. The wonder is that one who, in 
ordinary private life, would scorn to act otherwise than 
as a honourable English gentleman, could, when he had 
to deal with religion, become a party to such unworthy and 
crooked conduct as that exposed in his own biography. 
And what must we think of the cause which needed such 
assistance ? De Lisle did not act alone. It was his 
boast, as we have seen, that " Bishop Wiseman perfectly 
concurs with me in everything ; " and there is no evidence 
to show that the Pope ever censured either the one or the 
other for their double dealing ; and yet the Pope was 
made fully acquainted with what they were doing. Later 
on, when Newman was a Roman priest, he saw clearly 
the advantage to be gained by Rome through the adop 
tion of one portion of De Lisle s policy, when, on July 
i, 1857, he wrote to De Lisle: "I perfectly agree with 
you in thinking that the Movement of 1833 is not over 
in the country, whatever be the state of Oxford itself; 
also, I think it is for the interest of Catholicism that in- 

1 Life and Letters of Ambrose de Lisle, vol. i. p. 237. 


dividuals should not join us, but should remain to leaven 
the mass I mean that they will do more for us by remaining 
where they are than by coming over" ] At the same time 
Newman felt that there was danger to the individual who 
adopted such a policy, although the Roman Church would 
be a gainer by it ; for he added : " But then, they have 
individual souls, and with what heart can I do anything 
to induce them to preach to others, if they themselves 
thereby become castaways?" 

The Rev. W. G. Ward certainly acted for a time on 
this policy of aiding the Roman Church by staying 
within the Church of England, with a view to bringing 
her back to unity with Rome. His son says of him 
that, while he was a clergyman of the Church of England : 

"He had long held that the Roman Church was the one true 
Church. He had gradually come to believe that the English 
Church was not strictly a part of the Church at all. He had felt 
bound to retain his external communion with her members, because 
he believed that he was bringing many of them towards Rome; 
and to unite himself to the Church which he loved and trusted, 
to enjoy the blessings of external communion for himself, if by so 
doing he thwarted this larger and fuller victory of truth, had seemed 
a course both indefensible and selfish. 

"Still, he had long looked on his present position as only a 
time of waiting, as a season of Purgatory, as the painful and 
laborious seed-sowing, endured patiently because of the harvest to 
come. It was years since he had written that restoration of com 
munion with the one Catholic Church and the See of Peter was 
the most enchanting earthly prospect on which his imagination 
could dwell. He had become accustomed to a position similar to 
that of the missionary, who foregoes the happiness of living among 
his brethren in the faith, often of approaching the Sacraments, of 
the sustaining and health-giving presence of Church Liturgy and 
ordinances, in order that he may lead strangers to see the truth, 
and to enjoy eventually in his company those helps and blessings 
which he foregoes for the moment for their sakes." 2 

Is it unreasonable to fear that at the present hour 
there may be a very large number of Ritualistic clergy in 
the Church of England acting on the very same principle 

1 Life and Letters of Ambrose de Lisle, vol. i. p. 368. 

2 William George Ward and the Oxford Movement, pp. 356, 357. 


which kept Ward for some years within the Church of 
England? He was for a time the leader of the- more 
advanced Romanisers, and their conduct, it seems, was 
quite as bad as his. Of these men Mr. Wilfrid W T ard 
writes : 

"Roman doctrine was more and more fully accepted, until in 
Mr. Ward s work, The Ideal of a Christian Church, Rome was 
practically acknowledged as the Divinely appointed guardian and 
teacher of religious truth. Finally, the old idea of working towards 
the Reunion ot" Churches, and calling for concessions on both sides 
with a view to this object, disappeared. The Pope was maintained 
to be normally Primate of Christendom, AND THE ULTIMATE AIM 


"On what ground then did the men who held this theory justify 
their remaining in the Church of England? On the ground (i) that 
Providence had placed them in it; (2) that its formularies were so 
loose as to allow the holding of all Roman doctrine within its pale ; 
(3) that the sudden adoption of doctrines new to the moral nature 
was difficult and undesirable, and that the English Church afforded 
a good position for gradually drawing nearer to Rome, until some 
considerable portion of Churchmen should have so far imbibed the 
spirit of Roman Catholicism, as to feel conscientiously impelled to 
outward conformity to its communion. For an individual to move 
prematurely might destroy this prospect ; and, therefore, he was to 
be, fir the present, content with uniting himself in spirit to the Roman 
Church, without formally joining her. So long as conscience did 
not clearly call upon him to take the further step, so long might he 
hope that he was not cut oft from grace by remaining where Pro 
vidence had placed him." 1 

Of course, this advanced section of Romanisers went 
beyond Pusey and Keble in a Romeward direction, and 
therefore I do not accuse them of complicity with their 
work, though I may mention that of Keble it is recorded 
by one of his biographers that, on May 14, 1843, he 
wrote to Newman : Certainly there is a great yearning 
even after Rome in many parts of the Church, which 
seems to be accompanied by so much good that one hopes 
if it be right it will be allowed to gain strength." * 

1 George Ward and the Oxford Movement t p. 212. 
* John Keble. By Walter Lock, M.A., p. 120. 


The Jerusalem Bishopric Chevalier Bunsen s mission to England 
Puseyite opposition Hope-Scott s objections Dr. Hook supports 
the Bishopric His description of the Romanisers Pusey s Letter 
to the Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Ashley s letter to Pusey 
Mr. Gladstone supports the Bishopric Newman and the Jerusalem 
Bishopric He thinks it "atrocious" and "hideous" His Protest 
Contest for Professorship of Poetry Isaac Williams and Reserve in 
Communicating Religious Knowledge Extracts from his writings 
Mr. Garbett, the Protestant candidate Samuel Wilberforce on the 
contest He denounces the Romanisers Success of the Protestant 
candidate Secessions to Rome The Rev. F. W. Faber His visit 
to the Continent His Sights and Thoughts in Foreign Churches 
How he deceived the public The Rev. William Goode His Pro 
testant works His Case as It Is His Divine Rule of Faith and 
Practice Bishop Bagot s Visitation Charge Mr. Goode answers it 
The Parker Society. 

ANOTHER heated controversy arose in 1841 in connection 
with the establishment of the Jerusalem Bishopric. The 
first step towards the formation of this Bishopric was 
taken by the King of Prussia, who was sincerely and 
earnestly anxious to secure for Protestants of all de 
nominations, residing in Palestine, that protection in the 
exercise of their religious duties which at that time was 
greatly needed. Besides this his Majesty was most 
desirous of promoting the unity of true Protestants of 
all Evangelical denominations, a unity which he felt would 
be greatly promoted by the foundation of an Anglican 
Bishopric in Jerusalem. Having carefully considered the 
question the King decided on sending Chevalier Bunsen 
to London, for the purpose of negotiating with the British 
Government, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the 
Bishop of London, with a view to the carrying out of his 
beneficent plans. Bunsen was instructed by his Royal 
Master to ascertain : " How far the Church of England, 


which is already possessed of a Minister s residence on 
Mount Zion, and has begun to build a Church on the 
spot, would be inclined to grant the Evangelical National 
Church of Prussia rank, as a sister-Church, in the Holy 
Land ? " If the request of the King were granted, he 
would do all in his power to assist the Bishopric. " Nor 
will his Majesty," he said in his " Instructions " to Cheva 
lier Bunsen, " impelled by a feeling of Apostolical Catho 
licity, and expectant of a reciprocal feeling on the part of 
the Church of England, refrain from expressing his readi 
ness to allow all the clergy and missionaries of his native 
Church, in every land of Missions where the Church of 
England has an Episcopate, to unite with it ; even to the 
seeking, if needful, of that Episcopal ordination, which 
the Church of England requires for admission to the 
priestly office. And his Majesty will provide that such 
ordination be duly recognised and respected in his own 

On arriving in England, Bunsen found the authorities 
in Church and State generally favourable to the King s 
proposals, which were heartily approved by the Arch 
bishop of Canterbury (Dr. Howley), and the Bishop of 
London (Dr. Blomfield). The scheme was taken up very 
warmly by Evangelical Churchmen, Lord Ashley (after 
wards Earl of Shaftesbury) taking the lead in removing 
all difficulties in the way, and furthering the scheme to 
the utmost. Within five days of his arrival in London 
Bunsen called on Lord Ashley, who thus recorded his 
visit in his diary : " June 24th. My friend Bunsen has 
just called, and has brought me a most honourable and 
gratifying message from the King of Prussia. May the 
blessing of God s saints of old, of David, and of Hezekiah, 
be on him and his for ever ! But all things are now won 
derful. The mission of Bunsen is a wonder." 3 Lord 
Ashley arranged a meeting between Bunsen and Peel. 
From Lord Palmerston Bunsen received every encourage- 

1 The Jerusalem Bishopric Documents. By the Rev. Professor W. H. Hechler. 
London : 1883. Part II. p. 2. 

2 Ibid. p. 12. 

3 Life of Lord Shaftesbury, popular edition, p. 199. 


ment. " Palmerston," wrote Lord Ashley, " went forward 
with the zeal of an Apostle, did in three weeks what at 
another time, or, as it seems, under any influence but 
mine, he would not have listened to in twelve months, 
fanned the weak embers of willing but timid spirit in the 
Bishops, and made that to be necessary and irrevocable 
which his successors would have thought the attribute of 
a maniac, even in imagination." * Before, however, the 
Jerusalem Bishopric could be founded, it was necessary 
to pass a special Act of Parliament to legalise it. Special 
facilities were offered for this purpose, with the result that 
the Bill speedily passed through both Houses of Par 
liament, received the Royal assent early in October, and 
is now known as the Jerusalem Bishopric Act (5 Vic 
toria, chap. vi.), though the word Jerusalem is not once 
mentioned in it. One half of the money necessary for 
endowing the Bishopric was supplied by the King of 
Prussia ; the other half was subscribed in England, the 
London Society for Promoting Christianity amongst the 
Jews giving ^3000. From a Statement of Proceedings issued 
at the end of 1841, and " Published by Authority," we 
learn that the Archbishop " first consulted the Bishops " 
about the scheme for a Bishopric. " Its ultimate results 
cannot be with certainty predicted ; but we may reason 
ably hope that, under the Divine blessing, it may lead the 
way to an essential unity of discipline, as well as of doc 
trine, between our own Church and the less perfectly 
constituted of the Protestant Churches of Europe, and 
that, too, not by the way of Rome ; while it may be the 
means of establishing relations of unity between the 
United Church of England and Ireland and the ancient 
Churches of the East, strengthening them against the en 
croachments of the See of Rome, and preparing the way 
for their purification, in some cases from serious errors." 2 
The Bishop of Jerusalem, continued the Statement, <( is 
specially charged not to entrench upon the spiritual rights 

1 Life of Lord Shaftesbury, p. 200. 

2 Statement of Proceedings Relating to the Establishment of a Bishopric in 
Jerusalem. Published by Authority, p. 5. London : Rivingtons. 1841. 


and liberties of those Churches [of the East] ; but to con 
fine himself to the care of those over whom they cannot 
rightly claim any jurisdiction. . . . The Bishop of the 
United Church of England and Ireland at Jerusalem is to 
be nominated alternately by the Crowns of England and 
Prussia, the Archbishop having the absolute right of veto, 
with respect to those nominated by the Prussian Crown." 1 
The Statement continues : 

" Congregations, consisting of Protestants of the German tongue, 
residing within the limits of the Bishop s jurisdiction, and willing to 
submit to it, will be under the care of German clergymen ordained 
by him for that purpose ; who will officiate in the German language, 
according to the forms of their National Liturgy, compiled from the 
Ancient Liturgies, agreeing in all points of doctrine with the Liturgy 
of the English Church, and sanctioned by the Bishop with consent 
of the Metropolitan, for the special use of those congregations ; such 
Liturgy to be used in the German language only. Germans, intended 
for the charge of such congregations, are to be ordained according 
to the Ritual of the English Church, and to sign the Articles of that 
Church ; and, in order that they may not be disqualified by the laws 
of Germany from officiating to German congregations, they are, be 
fore ordination, to exhibit to the Bishop a certificate of their having 
subscribed, before some competent authority, the Confession of 
Augsburg." 2 

The clergyman selected to be the first Protestant 
Bishop of Jerusalem was the Rev. M. S. Alexander, D.D. 
The Queen s mandate for his consecration was dated Nov 
ember 6, 1841, and he was consecrated on November 7th 
by the Archbishop of Canterbury, assisted by the Bishops 
of London, Rochester, and New Zealand. 

The Jerusalem Bishopric was thus founded, with the 
approbation of the overwhelming majority of English 
Churchmen. But some there were who murmured. 

"But oh !" wrote Lord Ashley, in his diary for October i2th, 
"the monstrosities of Puseyism ! The Bishop of London is beset, 
and half brow-beaten, by the clamorous and uncatholic race. He 
showed Bunsen to-day a letter from Dr. Pusey beginning : It is 

1 Statement of Proceedings Relating to the Establishment of a Bishopric in 
Jerusalem^ p. 6. 

2 Ibid. p. 8. 


now for the first time that the Church of England holds communica 
tion with those who are without the Church ! This is the holy, 
Christian, Catholic way in which he speaks of all the congrega 
tions of Protestant Germany. Towards the end he adds : The 
Church of England will thus be the protectress of all Protestant 
communions. What can be so dreadful ? The Puseyite object is 
this, * to effect reconciliation with Rome ; ours, with Protestantism ; 
they wish to exalt Apostolical Succession so high as to make it para 
mount to all moral purity, and all doctrinal truth ; we, to respect it 
so as to shift it from Abiathar to Zadok." l 

The Jerusalem Bishopric controversynaturally produced 
a pamphlet war. Mr. James R. Hope (afterwards known 
as Hope-Scott), Chancellor of the Diocese of Salisbury, a 
prominent Tractarian, and an intimate friend of Newman 
and Mr. Gladstone, was greatly disturbed by what had 
taken place. It shook his faith in the Church of England, 
and prepared the way for his secession to Rome a few 
years later. He relieved his feelings by private corre 
spondence with both Newman and Gladstone, and at last, 
at the close of the year, published a pamphlet on the sub 
ject in the form of a Letter to a Friend. In this document 
Mr. Hope candidly indicated his chief objection to the 
Bishopric. " Above all," he said, " we are bound not to 
insult those Bishops [in Jerusalem] through whose suffer 
ance our Church there is to exist, by pretending to recog 
nise and participate in their Catholicity, and at the same 
time by professing religious identity with Calvinism or 
Lutheranism, both of which they have by name (Synod of 
Jerusalem in 1675), condemned and rejected."" His dis 
like of the Bishopric was still more clearly revealed in the 
following passage : 

" And if, on the other hand, it should be determined in law that 
Bishop Alexander is not subject to the English Metropolitan, or 
governed in his Diocese by the constitution of the English Church ; 
or if, before a legal decision can be obtained, it should be publicly 
proclaimed from authority in this country that such is the basis of 
the new Bishopric, then it will be at once evident that, whatever 

1 Life of Lord Shaftesbury, p. 201. 

2 The Bishopric of the United Church of England and Ireland at Jerusalem. 
By James R. Hope, B.C.L., ist edition, p. 45. 


title may have been given to Bishop Alexander, he can in no real 
sense be a Bishop of our Church, nor can his acts in any way impli 
cate us, or affect our credit in the face of Christendom. He must 
then be held to be an independent Bishop, not in connection with 
any Catholic body a fragment struck off from the Rock of the 
Church. Into the communion of such a Bishop no orthodox 
Churchman abroad will enter, no orthodox clergyman will submit to 
his jurisdiction; his orders will not be received in England; the 
marriages and other rites solemnised by his clergy will be open to 
serious doubts in our Ecclesiastical Courts ; and that these things 
may not be hid from the world, it will (as I conceive) be the 
wisdom, if not the duty, of the sister Churches in England, Ireland, 
Scotland, the Colonies, and America, to proclaim at once and aloud 
their repudiation of a Prelate, who will have professed openly his 
design to reject the order of the Church which gave him mission, 
and whose title and privileges he assumes." x 

No doubt this is exactly what Mr. Hope and his friends 
would have liked to have happened. Yet they dared not 
attempt to bring about such a repudiation of Bishop 
Alexander by an action in the Courts such as was hinted 
at in Mr. Hope s pamphlet. This document was answered 
by the well-known Broad Churchman, the Rev. F. D. 
Maurice, who declared that : " It would have been a sin 
in the Bishops of our Church to let these canonical obli 
gations hinder them from embracing an opportunity, not 
sought for by them, but offering itself to them unexpect 
edly, of promoting Catholic unity, and advancing Catholic 
principles. And that it will be a sin in us, if we allow these 
canonical objections, supposing no higher and stronger 
reasons can be produced, to hinder us from giving God 
thanks for what has been done, and from labouring, so far 
as in us lies, that it may not have been done in vain." 2 

Several very decided High Churchmen gave their help 
to the Jerusalem Bishopric. Dr. Hook, Vicar of Leeds, 
actually subscribed to the Bishopric Fund. No modern 
Ritualist can point the finger of scorn at Hook, and call 
him an ultra-Protestant. It was he who, as far back as 

1 Hope s The Bishopric of the United Church of England and Ireland at 
Jerusalem, pp. 55, 56. 

2 Three Letters to the Rev. W. Palmer. By F. D. Maurice, A.M., Professor 
of English Literature at King s College, London, p. 89. London : 1842. 


1835, declared that, in his opinion, "the danger now is, 
not from Popery, but from that snare of Satan, ultra- 
Protestantism " j 1 and who, in 1840, writing to a friend, 
declared : " I for one think that a Romanist is far less in 
error than Owen and Baxter." 2 Yet even Dr. Hook wrote 
a pamphlet defending the Jerusalem Bishopric against the 
narrow-minded and bigoted views of his more advanced 
friends. In the commencement of this pamphlet Dr, 
Hook sorrowfully acknowledged that : 

" There are, certainly , many such persons among our younger breth 
ren at the present time, who are inclined to look upon our Church in 
the following light : they regard the Church of England as a Branch 
of the Catholic Church from which, without peril to their souls, they 
may not secede j but they look upon it as injured rather than improved 
by the Reformation ; they think that if some abuses were corrected, 
serious errors were introduced ; they agree with the Romanists in main 
taining that the Reformation was unnecessary r , at all events, to the extent 
to which it was carried ; and that it was conducted in a manner not to 
be defended upon Catholic principles. The conclusion which must 
inevitably be deduced from these premises is this, that the Church 
of England, as at present constituted, is not the model according to 
which other Churches are to be reformed ; and that we have as much 
to learn from Rome as Rome has to learn from us. I believe that in 
this statement I have clearly asserted an opinion very extensively 
held upon this subject. From this opinion I do entirely dissent." 3 

No wonder that those, who so " very extensively held " 
these unworthy views of the English Church, were bitterly 
opposed to any approach on her part towards union with 
non-Episcopal Protestant Churches on the Continent. As 
to the Jerusalem Bishopric Hook said : 

"The fact of our placing a Bishop of our own Church in 
Jerusalem, not as an usurper of another Bishop s jurisdiction, but 
as a representative of the English Church, in a land where such 
conduct is tolerated with respect to other branches of the Catholic 
Church, to discharge the ministerial office for those who cannot be 
received into communion with the Oriental Church, and to watch 
over the intrigues of the Church of Rome, which certainly can have 

1 Life of Dean Hook, vol. i. p. 274. 

2 Ibid. vol. ii. p. 59. 

3 Reasons for Contributing Towards the Support of an English Bishop at 
Jerusalem. By Walter F. Hook, D.D., p. 3. London : 1842. 


no more right to have a representative at Jerusalem than we have ; 
all this cannot have a tendency, as you seem to think, to continue 
the division which unhappily exists in the Catholic Church." l 

Dr. Pusey was at first, through conversations with 
Bunsen, favourable to the proposed Bishopric at Jeru 
salem. But later on, mainly through the influence of 
Newman, he altered his mind, and became an opponent. 
At this period he was very much troubled by the contro 
versy which had arisen in connection with Tract .XC., the 
Episcopal charges against it, and the accusations of a tend 
ency to Romanism which had been brought against the 
Tractarians. He determined, therefore, to publish a kind 
of apology for his friends, in which he tried to minimise 
to the utmost the censures of the Bishops, and at the 
same time he availed himself of the opportunity to deal 
with the Jerusalem Bishopric question. He did this in 
the form of A Letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, which 
filled a pamphlet of 171 pages. With the earlier portion 
of this document I have here no special concern, except 
to call attention to the following remarkable statement, 
which deserves to be more widely known than it is at 
the present day : 

" Two schemes of doctrines," wrote Dr. Pusey, " the Genevan 
and the Catholic, are, probably for the last time, struggling within 
our Church ; the contest, which has been carried on ever since the 
Reformation, between the Church and those who parted from her, 
has now been permitted to be transferred to the Church herself; 
on the issue hangs the destiny of our Church \ if human frailty or 
impatience precipitates not that issue, all will be well, and it will 
have a peaceful close ; yet a decisive issue it must have ; the one must 
in time absorb the other ; or, to speak more plainly, the Catholic, as 
the full truth of God, must, unless it be violently cast out> in time 
leaven and absorb into itself whatever is partial and defective ; as it 
has already very extensively." 2 

Translated into plainer language, " Genevan " meant, 
in Pusey s mind, decided Protestantism ; while " Catholic " 

1 Hook s Reasons for Contributing Towards the Support of an English 
Bishop at Jerusalem , p. II. 

2 A Letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury on Some Circumstances Con 
nected with the Present Crisis in the English Church. By the Rev. E. B. 
Pusey, D.D., pp. 84, 85. Oxford: 1842. 


meant that imitation of a great deal of Popery with which 
his name is associated. It is evident from the above 
quotation that he foresaw that " a decisive issue " between 
Protestantism and sham Popery must eventually come ; 
but he dreaded lest by tl human frailty or impatience " 
it should come too soon, for then his party might expect 
to " be violently cast out." But one thing he felt was 
certain and in this I agree with him sooner or later 
one or other of the two systems of religion, the Protestant 
or the Sacerdotal, must cease to exist in the Church of 
England. That is really the issue before the country in 
the present Ritual Crisis. Unless the Romanising lion be 
" cast out," it will " absorb " the Evangelical lamb, and 
that means death to the lamb. We are engaged in a 
struggle of life or death. The issue will be, either that 
the Protestant Reformation shall be utterly undone, and 
the Church go back to her condition in the Dark Ages ; 
or we must go forward in Gospel and Protestant light, 
until " light shall conquer darkness," and England s 
Church shall once more be the greatest bulwark against 
Popery to be found in the world. We are looking for 
ward to times of war, not of peace. We need brave men 
now, men who will love the glorious Gospel brought back 
again to life at the Reformation, more than ease, or 
friends, or life. 

As to the Jerusalem Bishopric Pusey threatened the 
Archbishop in these words : " But any step which has 
a tendency to bring her [the Church of England] into 
relations with foreign un-Catholic bodies, will be unset 
tling. Any advance to Protestantism will produce a 
counter-movement towards Romanism." l He expressed 
a fear lest attempts should be made to convert people 
from the Eastern Church. To act in this way he actually 
declared would be " encouraging sin," 2 though he must 
have known that that Church was steeped in doctrinal 
corruption and superstition. He had no objection to the 

1 Pusey s Letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury on Some Circumstances Con 
nected with the Present Crisis in the English Church, p. 1 12. 
* Ibid. p. 117. 


Lutherans being {t absorbed into our Church, " and he had 
at first looked forward to such an absorption with hope ; 
but as to this Jerusalem Bishopric : " Think/ he wrote, 
"only of its effect on the Orthodox Greek communion 
(apart from the graver and deeper question of the re 
sponsibility we should ourselves incur), what suspicion 
must needs be cast upon us, that we thus, in their very 
presence, sanction bodies whom they have anathematised, 
not incorporating them into ourselves nor infusing into 
them our principles, but joined in an outward alliance 
with them." 1 And all this dread of alliance with Lu 
therans was almost solely caused by the fact that they 
were not Episcopalians. One cannot wonder at the 
language which Pusey s cousin, Lord Ashley, used when 
he wrote to him, on January 18, 1842, with reference to 
the Jerusalem Bishopric : 

" You talk," wrote Lord Ashley, " in allusion to the Bishopric, of 
{ the grave injury of countenancing heresy ; this is the necessary 
language, the inevitable issue of your principles ; thus you class with 
the Gnostics, Cerinthians, &c., of old, with the Munster Anabaptists 
and Socinians of modern days, the whole mass of the Protestant 
Churches of Europe, except England and Sweden. Every one, 
however deep his piety, however holy his belief, however prostrate 
his heart in faith and fear before God and his Saviour, however 
simple and perfect his reliance on the merits of his Redeemer, is 
consigned by you, if he be not Episcopally ruled, to the outward 
darkness of the children of the Devil ; while in the same breath you 
designate the Church of Rome as the sweet Spouse of Christ, and 
hide all her abominable idolatries under the mantle of her Bishops. 
This is, to my mind, absolutely dreadful ; and I say of your friends, 
as old Jacob said of Simeon and Levi, Oh, my soul, come not thou 
into their secret." 2 

Mr. Gladstone was invited to become one of the 
Trustees of the Jerusalem Bishopric, and he accepted the 
post, but subsequently withdrew from it. He was, how 
ever, present at a dinner which Bunsen gave on October 
15, 1841, at the Star and Garter, Richmond, and at which 
the new Bishop of Jerusalem and many other friends 

1 Pusey s Letter to the Archbishop of Cauterbtiry on Some Circumstances Con 
nected with the Present Crisis in the English Church, p. 115. 

2 Life of Lord Shaftesbury, pp. 211, 212. 


were present. Writing to his wife afterwards Bunsen 
said : " Then I arose, and proposed The Church of 
England, and the venerable Prelates at her Head ; and 
spoke as I felt. M Caul returned thanks, speaking of 
Jerusalem, which led to Gladstone s toast, Prosperity to 
the Church of St. James at Jerusalem, and to her first 
Bishop. Never was heard a more exquisite speech it 
flowed like a gentle and translucent stream." l 

As to Newman, he took the matter so seriously to 
heart that, as he tells us in his Apologia : " This was the 
third blow, which finally shattered my faith in the Angli 
can Church. That Church was not only forbidding any 
sympathy or concurrence with the Church of Rome, but 
it actually was courting an intercommunion with Protes 
tant Prussia and the heresy of the Orientals." : To his 
friends Newman spoke of the Jerusalem Bishopric in such 
terms as these : "This atrocious Jerusalem Bishop affair"; 3 
"This fearful business of the Bishop of Jerusalem" ; 4 "It 
is hideous." So he got up a " Protest " of his own against 
the Bishopric, of which Pusey expressed his approval, 6 and 
sent it to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of 
Oxford, commencing thus : 

" Whereas the Church of England has a claim on the allegiance 
of Catholic believers only on the ground of her own claim to be 
considered a branch of the Catholic Church : 

"And whereas the recognition of heresy, indirect as well as direct, 
goes far to destroy such claim in the case of any religious body 
advancing it : 

"And whereas to admit maintainers of heresy to communion, 
without formal renunciation of their errors, goes far towards recog 
nising the same : 

" And whereas Luther anism and Calvinism are heresies^ repugnant 
to Scripture, springing up three centuries since, and anathematised 
by East as well as West : 

"And whereas it is reported that the Most Reverend Primate 
and other Right Reverend Rulers of our Church have consecrated a 

1 Memoirs of Baron Bunsen, vol. i. p. 625. 

2 Apologia Pro Vita Sua, p. 248. 

8 Newman s Letters^ vol. ii. p. 352. 4 Ibid. p. 352. 8 Ibid. p. 353. 

6 Memoirs of James Hope- Scott, vol. i. p. 317. 


Bishop with a view to exercising spiritual jurisdiction over Protestant, 
that is, Lutheran and Calvinist, congregations in the East . . . 

" On these grounds, I in ray place, being a priest of the English 
Church and Vicar of St. Mary the Virgin s, Oxford, by way of 
relieving my conscience, do hereby solemnly protest against the 
measure aforesaid, and disown it, as removing our Church from her 
present ground, and tending to her disorganisation." 1 

Opposition of this violent kind raised the indignation 
of many High Churchmen, including some who approved 
of the earlier of the Tracts for the Times, and made 
Archdeacon Samuel Wilberforce declare : " I confess I 
feel furious at the craving of men for union with idola 
trous, material, sensual, domineering Rome, and their 
squeamish anathematising hatred of Protestant Reformed 
men." 2 

Another event occurred towards the close of 1841, 
which requires notice in these pages, viz., the contest 
for the Professorship of Poetry in Oxford University. 
Two candidates applied for the vacant Professorship, the 
Rev. Isaac Williams ; and the Rev. James Garbett, late 
Fellow of Brasenose College and Bampton Lecturer- 
Elect for 1842. The excitement which centred round 
the election was intense. It became a great party con 
test, in which the question before the electors was only 
nominally, which of the two candidates is the best poet ? 
The real question for their decision was, which is the 
best Churchman ? Mr. Williams was the candidate put 
forward by the Tractarians ; Mr. Garbett was the Pro 
testant candidate. The great objection to Mr. Williams 
was caused by his being the author of two of the Tracts 
for the Times which had raised a storm of indignation 
throughout the country. Each of these Tracts bore the 
same title, " On Reserve in Communicating Religious 
Knowledge," the first being No. 80 of the Tracts for the 
Times, and the second No. 87 of the series. The follow 
ing extracts from these documents contain the passages 

1 Newman s Letters, vol. ii. pp. 362, 363. Newman s Apologia, pp. 251, 252. 

2 Life of Bishop Wilberforce, vol. i. p. 213. 


which were most objected against by Churchmen. The 
italics are mine : 

" The object of the present inquiry is to ascertain, whether there 
is not in God s dealings with mankind, a very remarkable holding 
back of sacred and important truths, as if the knowledge of them 
were injurious to persons unworthy of them." * 

"Not only is the exclusive and naked exposure of so very sacred 
a truth [as the Doctrine of the Atonement ] unscriptural and 
dangerous, but, as Bishop Wilson says, the comforts of Religion 
ought to be applied with great caution. And moreover to require, 
as is sometimes done, from both grown persons and children, an 
explicit declaration of a belief in the Atonement, and the full assur 
ance of its power, appears equally untenable." 2 

"These riches [that is, certain sacred truths ] are all secret, 
given to certain dispositions not cast loosely on the world. . . . 
The great doctrines which of late years have divided Christians, are 
again of this [ secret ] kind very peculiarly, such as the subjects of 
Faith and Works, of the free Grace of God, and obedience on the 
part of man. . . . They appear to be great secrets, notwithstanding 
whatever may be said of them, only revealed to the faithful." 3 

"With respect to the Holy Sacraments, it is in these, and by 
these chiefly, that the Church of all ages has held the Doctrine of the 
Atonement after a certain manner of reserve. . . . Now here it is 
very evident at once that the great difference between the two 
systems [i.e. what Williams terms the true Catholic, and the 
modern Protestant system] consists in this, that the one holds the 
doctrine secretly as it were ; and the other in a public and popular 

manner." 4 

"The same may be shown with respect to the powers of 
Priestly Absolution, and the gifts conferred thereby. It is not re 
quired for our purpose to show the reality of that power, and the 
magnitude of those gifts which are thus dispensed. But a little 
consideration will show, that if the Church of all ages is right in 
exercising these privileges, the subject is one entirely of this reserved 
and mystical character. Its blessings are received in secret, accord 
ing to faith : they are such as the world cannot behold, and cannot 
receive. The subject is one so profound and mysterious, that it hardly 
admits of being put forward in a popular way, and doubtless more 
injury than benefit would be done to religion by doing so incon 
siderately." 5 

1 Tract LXXX. p. 3. 2 Ibid. p. 78. * Ibid. pp. 48, 49. 

4 Tract LXXX VII. pp. 88, 89. 6 Ibid. p. 90. 


We cannot be surprised to learn that the Evangelical 
and Protestant Churchmen of the day were alarmed at 
such teaching as this. They, at any rate, would not be a 
party to the teaching that the doctrines of the Atonement, 
Faith and Works, the Free Grace of God, and the Sacra 
ments were to be treated as secrets to be imparted only 
to those who could be trusted. And they had a just 
reason to dread that this doctrine of Reserve would be 
used as it actually was by the Tractarians to hide their 
real objects from cautious Protestants. They acted 
crookedly, as Mr. De Lisle tells us very truly, "for the 
purpose of throwing dust in the eyes of the Dissenters 
and the Low Churchmen." l Mr. Williams himself, in his 
Autobwgraphy } tells us, when describing the Poetry Pro 
fessorship contest : " That the Low Church party as a 
body should oppose me, as Wadham College did, was 
all right and natural my Tract No. 80 was against them 
they rightly understood it, there was no mistake : And 
again, Mr. Williams writes : " With regard to the great 
obloquy it [Tract No. 80] occasioned from the Low Church 
Party, this was to be expected it was against their 
hollow mode of proceeding ; it was understood as it was 
meant, and of this I do not complain." 3 

I cannot therefore think that it was any great cause 
for surprise that, as soon as Mr. Isaac Williams name was 
known as a candidate for the vacant post of Professor of 
Poetry, the Evangelical Party made an effort to oppose it. 
On November 16, 1841, a circular letter was issued in 
Mr. Garbett s favour, in which, after calling attention to 
the fact that Mr. Williams was a writer in the Tracts for 
the Times , and author of the Tract On Reserve in Communi 
cating Religious Knowledge, it continued : " The election of 
Mr. Williams in Mr. Keble s room would undoubtedly be 
represented as a decision of Convocation in favour of his 
party ; and the resident members of our College are 
unanimous in thinking that this would be a serious evil, 
as well as highly discreditable to the University." 4 The 

1 Life of Ambrose Phillipps de Lisle, vol. i. p. 217. 

2 Autobiography of Isaac Williams, p. 139. 3 Ibid. p. 91. 
4 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. ii. p. 262. 


very next day after this letter was written, Dr. Pusey sent 
out a letter on the same subject to the members of Con 
vocation; with whom rested the election, in which he 
advocated strongly the candidature of Mr. Williams, and 
urged them to vote for him. This letter seems to have 
displeased Williams, because it brought out the contro 
versial question too prominently. " At first," he said, 
" things went on silently and quietly, without any overt 
act that stamped it as a religious or party movement. 
But this comparative quietude was very soon broken up 
by Pusey, unwittingly, and as it was thought most un 
wisely, for what he did immediately gave our adversaries 
all that they desired. This was the printed circular 
which he issued in my praise and in my favour, com 
plaining of my being bitterly opposed merely and avow 
edly for my Church principles. Upon this, the opposite 
party had promises pouring in on all sides, and many, 
who had been with us, held aloof, and some withdrew 
their promises. . . . The commotion filled the papers and 
all parts of the land." * Of Pusey s circular, Dean Church 
writes : " In an unlucky moment for Mr. W T illiams, 
Dr. Pusey, not without the knowledge, but without the 
assenting judgment of Mr. Newman, thought it well to 
send forth a circular, in Christ Church first, but soon 
with wider publicity, asking support for Mr. Williams as 
a person whose known religious views would ensure his 
making his office minister to religious truth. Nothing 
could be more innocently meant. It was the highest 
purpose to which that office could be devoted. But the 
mistake was seen on all sides as soon as made. The 
Principal of Mr. Garbett s College, Dr. Gilbert, like a 
general jumping on his antagonist whom he had caught 
in the act of a false move, put forth a dignified counter- 
appeal, alleging that he had not raised this issue, but 
adding that as it had been raised and avowed on the other 
side, he was quite willing that it should be taken into 
account, and the dangers duly considered of that teaching 
with which Dr. Pusey s letter had identified Mr. Williams. 

1 Autobiography of Isaac Williams, pp. 138, 139. 


No one from that moment could prevent the contest from 
becoming almost entirely a theological one, which was to 
try the strength of the party of the movement." l 

The friends of Mr. Williams quite expected that Arch 
deacon Samuel Wilberforce would vote for him, and the 
Rev. Sir G. Prevost wrote to him for his support. The 
Archdeacon s reply is interesting and important, as showing 
that he had decided to part company with the Tractarians, 
whose Romeward tendencies began to alarm him. 

" I had hoped," wrote Wilberforce, " to vote for Isaac Williams ; 
and felt sure that I need under no circumstances vote against him ; 
for na mere interest of Poetry, even if a fitter man appeared, could 
compel me to vote against old friendship. But Pusey s unhappy 
letter about it has quite altered the circumstances of the case. He 
has made it a distinct question of peculiar tenets, and thus falls in 
remarkably with the last British Critic. I cannot hide from myself 
that now it must be, whatever one means, simply expressing publicly, 
aye or no, one s approbation of, or dissent from, the most peculiar 
features of the teaching of the Tract writers. With them, as you well 
know, I have never agreed. Their views on many points (specially 
the Tract on Reserve) have appeared to me so dangerous, that, at all 
costs, I felt I must bear my feeble testimony against them in my 
Oxford sermons, &c., &c. Of late, also, they have seemed to me to 
advance at immense speed. Newman s view of Justification, the 
language of Tract XC., the British Critic, &c., as to Rome; the 
craving after unity through some visible centre ; the saying that old 
Rome was that centre (whereas I believe that to be the central point 
of the old Papal lie, the seed of everything, the truly putting the 
Church for Christ, instead of showing it as full of Christ, the root of 
their opus operatum in Baptism, Transubstantiation, Tradition, &c., 
&c.) ; the fearful doctrine of sin after Baptism, the whole tone about 
the Reformers, &c., &c., all this has pained and grieved me so 
entirely, that I have felt daily obliged more and more, from the love 
of the truth as I saw it, from love to our Church, whose principles 
and very life I believe this teaching threatens, with formality and 
Romanism on the one hand, and a cold formality and Dissent (by 
its revulsion) on the other, to take on all occasions a position of more 
direct opposition to the School than I had of old thought necessary ; 
being content before to feel that, whilst I honoured their zeal, and 
was abashed by their holiness, and joined heartily in much Church 

1 Church s Oxford Movement, p. 274. 


truth they had brought forward, I myself was of another School of 
opinion and feeling ; but now, feeling that one must contend against 
what was spreading so widely, and shedding the seeds of Romanism 
. . . How can I, at such a moment, vote for Isaac, with the truth 
before me that all his voters will be men who wish to bear their testi 
mony to their persuasion of the truth of these principles, with which 
Dr. Pusey s letter has identified him in this contest ? Can I escape, 
at every sacrifice, voting against him ? " 1 

It was soon evident that what Mr. F. Rogers (after 
wards Lord Blachford, and a warm friend of the Tract 
arians), termed the " most outrageously injudicious letter " 2 
of Pusey had destroyed any chance of the success of 
Williams candidature. But the contest was carried on 
until early in January 1842, when Mr. Gladstone got up a 
memorial to the rival committees of Garbett and Williams, 
signed by 253 non-resident members of Convocation, and 
by the Bishops of Oxford, Exeter, Salisbury, Ripon, and 
Sodor and Man, requesting the withdrawal of both candi 
dates. Mr. Garbett s committee declined to entertain the 
proposal, while Williams committee suggested a compari 
son of promises made to both candidates. This latter pro 
posal was accepted by Mr. Garbett s committee, and with 
the result that it was found that 92 i members of Convoca 
tion had promised to vote for Garbett, while only 623 had 
promised to vote for Williams. The result was that Mr. 
Williams withdrew from the contest, and Mr. Garbett was 
elected as Professor of Poetry in the room of Mr. Keble. 

With the year 1842 the tide of secessions to Rome 
from the ranks of the Tractarians began to flow rapidly. 
In that year several prominent members of the party 
seceded. Many of the Tractarians commenced passing 
their holidays in visiting Continental churches and holding 
conferences with the Roman prelates and priests they met 
there. These visits greatly tended to move the more 
advanced men towards Rome. One of these travellers, 
who subsequently published a volume describing his travels, 
was the well-known Rev. Frederick W T illiam Faber, after 
wards known as Father Faber, of the Brompton Oratory. 

1 Life of Bishop Wilberforce, vol. i. pp. 205, 206. 

2 Letters of Lord Blachford, p. 106. 


I have elsewhere l given ample proof of Mr. Faber s out 
rageously Romanising conduct at this period, and therefore 
I need not repeat it here ; but I may be permitted to 
mention a startling fact concerning his visit to the Con 
tinent in 1841, with which I have only recently become 
acquainted. Faber published, early in 1842, an account 
of this visit to the Continent, under the title of Sights and 
Thoughts in Foreign Churches, rilling no less than 645 octavo 
pages. In this book, Faber mentions again and again 
certain interviews with an imaginary representative of the 
Dark Ages whom he met during his travels, and whom he 
terms the " Stranger." He reports the many assertions and 
arguments which this " Stranger " put forth as a Roman 
Catholic, in favour of the Church of Rome in the Dark 
Ages ; while, at the same time, he also reports in full the 
arguments which he (Mr. Faber) brought forward in favour 
of the Church of England against the Papal claims of the 
li Stranger." It now appears, on the authority of Faber s 
biographer, Father ]. E. Bowden, of the Brompton Ora 
tory, that in this matter Faber deliberately and intentionally 
deceived the public. The Popish views which he repre 
sented as those expressed by the Romish " Stranger " were 
in reality those held at the time by Faber himself, and many 
of the views expressed in the book as his own were those 
to which he was, in reality, strongly opposed. "The 
Stranger, " writes Father Bowden, " as he is usually 
called, personates, in fact, Mr. Faber s own Catholic feel 
ings and tendencies, against which he appears to contend." : 
And here we may profitably inquire, what were " Mr. 
Faber s own Catholic feelings and tendencies " thus deceit 
fully put by him into the mouth of the " Stranger " but 
which were held by him [Faber], as a clergyman of the 
Church of England, four years before he seceded to Rome ? 
The " Stranger " is represented as saying : 

"To such of you Englishmen as feel the want of it, does not 
celibacy afford to a priest one of the underhand (by which, not 

1 Secret History of the Oxford Movement, chapter i. 

2 Life and Letters of Frederick William Faber, D.D. By John Edward Bow 
den, 2nd edition, p. 75- 


to be misunderstood, is meant unoffending inwardly realised) ways 
in which meek hearts may attain to a stronger feeling of communion 
with the rest of Western Christendom ? " 1 

" There has seldom been a family on a throne with so few re 
spectable qualities as the English Tudors. The bitter and narrow- 
minded Mary deserves the most esteem ; for s/ie, through principles in 
which she had faith, gave up to the Pope what was nearest and 
dearest to a Tudor s heart, unshared supremacy" 2 

"What! does not the majesty of Rome, that awful Church, so 
overawe your spirit as to prevent your talking with such curious 
ingenuity of Rome s penitence ? " 3 

" Yet believe me, Rome will be permitted to lie grievously on 
those who will not reverence her. She is marked, not by her own 
hand, for reverence." 4 

" Oh, Rome ! the city of my times, the place of our glad and lowly 
pilgrimages, how changed thou art in many things, but still thou art 
Rome, and hast Rome s prerogative a tremendous power to ban or 
bless! "s 

" The usual Protestant objections to the legends and miracles of 
the Middle Ages peril authority of the Holy Scripture itself." 6 

" And as to the modification of the Monastic principle embodied 
in the Order of the Jesuits, you have only to look on the consistent 
encroachment which Rome has made upon the strongholds of Pro- 
testamism ever since, in order to understand and estimate the extent 
of service performed by that Order for the Holy See. I cannot, 
therefore, agree with you, that Religious Orders have been failures. 
On the contrary, a revival of the Monastic spirit seems to be 
one feature in every crisis of the Church, and to bear fruit abun 
dantly." 7 

"You put forward the highest possible claims for your Church [of 
England], often in a tone of pharisaical self-conceit, as though the 
usages and beliefs of the greater part of Christendom were of no 
account whatever in your eyes ; you repeatedly indulge in a very 
offensive sort of commiseration of Rome, forgetting, on the one 
hand, that you are very young, and, on the other, that Rome s com 
munion is much more extensive than your own, and comprehends 
wisdom and holiness which must demand the respect of every 
thoughtful and modest man." 8 

Sights and Thoughts in Foreign Churches. By Frederick William Faber, 

p. 130. 

2 Ibid. p. 167. 6 Ibid. p. 276. 

3 Ibid. p. 170. 7 Ibid.^. 356. 

4 Ibid. p. 171. 8 Ibid. p. 362. 
6 Ibid. p. 172. 


" But the temper, which would be called the temper of persecu 
tion, might be kindled among you [that is, in the Church of England] 
by Monasteries, and would be not the least important BLESSING which 
would spring from them" 1 

"True, they [Monasteries] have [ ever been nurseries of intoler 
ance and persecution ] ; and can any virtue be higher than an intoler 
ance of evil, and a hunting it from the earth ? Why be frightened 
at words? Persecution belongs not, strictly speaking, to the 
Church. Her weapon, and a most dire one, is excommunication, 
whereby she cuts off the offender from the fountains of life in this 
world, and makes him over from her own judgment to that of 
Heaven in the world to come. But surely it is the duty of Christian 
States to deprive such an excommunicate person of every social right 
and privilege ; to lay on him such pains and penalties as may seem 
good to the wisdom of the law; or even, if they so judge^ to sweep him 
from the earth. The least which can be done is to make a civil death 
to follow an ecclesiastical death; and this must be done where the 
Church and State stand in right positions to each other." 2 

If conduct like this of Faber s, in passing off as the 
opinions of a Romanist what were really his own 
opinions ; and representing himself as opposed to most of 
them, can be justified, it will follow that we can never 
know what an author s opinions really are. To my mind 
Faber was guilty of shameful and inexcusable deception, 
which reminds me very forcibly of what another Tract- 
arian clergyman of the period, the Rev. W. G. Ward, 
used to say to his disciples : " Make yourselves clear 
that you are justified in deception, and then lie like a 
trooper ! " 3 

It was in the year 1842 that the Rev. William Goode 
(afterwards Dean of Ripon) came publicly forward as a 
learned and able champion of Reformation principles 
against the Tractarians. Evangelical Churchmen owe a 
lasting debt of gratitude to Mr. Goode for the many pamph 
lets and books he wrote against the Romeward Movement. 
They are of permanent value, and as much needed at the 

1 Sights and Thoughts in Foreign Churches. By Frederick William Faber, 
p. 420. 

z Ibid. p. 419. 

3 William George Ward and the Oxford Movement. By Wilfrid Ward, 
P- Si- 


present time as when they were first issued. It is a pity 
that they are not more widely known, for the arguments 
they contain are as much needed now as when they were 
first published. Mr. Goode s pamphlet, The Case as It Is, 
issued in 1842, was an able reply to Dr. Pusey s Letter to 
the Archbishop of Canterbury, which I have already noticed. 
In this pamphlet Mr. Goode clearly proved that he, at 
least, was alive to the serious nature of the issues which 
were at stake. His opening sentence shows it. "That 
the very existence of the English Church," he wrote, " as 
restored by our Reformers, depends upon the issue of the 
controversy raised within her by the authors of the Tracts 
for the Times, and their adherents, can hardly be now con 
sidered a doubtful matter." Mr. Goode exposes the 
Romanising character of the doctrines of the Tractarians 
(whom he terms " Tractators ") by copious quotations 
from their writings ; and at the same time gives a startling 
exhibition of the methods of quotation which they adopted, 
when citing in their favour the chief writers of the Re 
formed Church, whose real principles, as he clearly proves, 
were strongly opposed to those held by the Tractarians. 
" Isolated sentences from our great divines," wrote Mr. 
Goode, " have been paraded before the public eye, as 
evidence of their approval of sentiments which their works, 
as a whole, show that they abhorred." 

Mr. Goode s great work was The Divine Ride of Faith 
and Practice, published this year in two large volumes, of 
which a second and enlarged edition was published, in 
three volumes, in i853. 3 The author showed an exten 
sive and intimate acquaintance, not only with the writings 
of our great Anglican Divines, but also with those of the 
Fathers of the Christian Church. His subject was one 
of the highest importance, and he dealt with it in a 
masterly manner. It is a pity that the work has never 

1 The Case as It Is ; or, a Reply to the Letter of Dr. Pusey, 2nd edition, 
p. 5, London : 1842. 

2 Ibid. p. 50. 

3 The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice ; or, "A Defence of the Catholic 
Doctrine that Holy Scripture has been, since the Times of the Apostles, the sole 
Divine Rule of Faith and Practice to the Church," 2nd edition. Three vols. 
London : 1853. 


been issued in an abridged form. The late Lord Chan 
cellor Selborne says, in a passage already cited, that 
" When William Goode, afterwards Dean of Ripon, in his 
Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, called the Fathers them 
selves as witnesses in favour of the direct use of Scripture 
for the decision of controversies, some of those who 
placed confidence in the Oxford Divines, but were them 
selves ignorant of the Fathers, waited anxiously for answers 
which never came." ] 

In May 1842, Dr. Bagot, Bishop of Oxford, delivered 
his fourth Visitation Charge to his clergy, in which at 
some length he directed attention to the Tractarian Move 
ment. He stated that he saw no reason to alter his senti 
ments, as to the Tracts for the Times, which he had expressed 
in his third Visitation Charge, in 1838, in which he had 
called attention to what he conceived to have been good in 
those Tracts, and to " the tendencies in them which " he 
" considered dangerous " ; and in which he had stated 
that his " fears arose, for the most part, rather from the 
disciples than the teachers." 2 He again praised the Tract 
writers for their personal character and conduct, though 
as to Tract XC. he declared : " I cannot reconcile myself 
to a system of interpretation, which is so subtle, that by 
it the Articles may be made to mean anything or no 
thing." 3 Nevertheless, he asserted of the Tracts as a 
whole, that they " have, from their commencement, ex 
erted a beneficial influence amongst us in many respects." 4 
As to the disciples of the Tract writers, for them he had 
words of severe censure. " They are," he said, " doing no 
good service to the Church of England, by their recent pub 
lications of manuals of private devotion, extracted from 
the Breviary and similar sources by inserting therein no 
small portion of highly objectionable matter, and tacitly, 
if not openly, encouraging young persons to be dissatisfied 
with what God has given them." 5 He thought there was 

1 Memorials Family and Personal, 1766-1865. By the Earl of Selborne, 
vol. i. p. 210. 

2 A Charge Delivered by Richard Bagot, D.D., Bishop of Oxford, p. 16. 
Oxford : 1842. 

3 Ibid. p. 17. 4 Ibid. p. 19. 5 Ibid. p. 23. 


a very real danger of secessions to Rome, not, however, 
from amongst the clergy, but from the young and rising 
generation ; and he urged the clergy to do all in their 
power to prevent such secessions. 

It was by no means a satisfactory Charge on the 
whole, and it seems to have given more pleasure than 
annoyance to the leaders of the Tractarian party. New 
man wrote to Keble about it, on May 24, 1842 : " You 
will be glad to hear that the Bishop s Charge delivered 
yesterday was very favourable to us, or rather to our 
cause, for some of us suffered." ] The Evangelical Mr. 
Goode was, however, by no means pleased with the 
Charge, and, therefore, at once subjected it to a public 
criticism, in the form of a Letter to the Bishop, who is 
reminded by Mr. Goode that the Romanists had termed 
him, as the author of such a Charge, " the apologist of 
the Tractarians." " Tractarianism," Mr. Goode said to 
the Bishop, " has been nursed under your eye. It has 
professed a readiness to act according to your bidding. 
You have suffered it to spread its principles in all direc 
tions throughout the Church. You have permitted it to 
proceed in its career unchecked." He pointed out the 
inconsistencies of the Charge. " One part of the Charge 
seems to be answered by another." 4 It is sometimes 
supposed that the Tractarians preached the pure Gospel. 
Mr. Goode did not think so. " My Lord," he wrote to 
Dr. Bagot, " if the Tractarians are preaching the Gospel 
of Christ in any degree of purity, their opponents are not 
so preaching It ; and if their opponents are so preaching 
it, they are not. This they have themselves admitted, nay 
urged upon us." 5 In conclusion he said : " The reflec 
tion forces itself upon the most unthinking, How different 
would have been the state of things, if four years ago the 
admonitions of the Bishop of Oxford had been distinct 
and decisive ! God grant that another four years may 

1 Newman s Letters, vol. ii. p. 396. 

2 Some Difficulties in the late Charge of the Bishop of Oxford. By William 
Goode, M.A., p. 3. London: 1842. 

3 Ibid. p. 5. 4 Ibid. p. 14. 5 Ibid. p. 29. 


not force upon y.our lordship and the Church reflections 
still more painful." : 

In this same year the Rev. George Stanley Faber pub 
lished his most useful Provincial Letters from the County- 
Palatine of Durham, directed against the Tractarians. 
Mr. Faber was a learned and prolific writer, and his works 
on the Roman controversy are well worthy of study at 
the present time. 2 

It was in the year 1842 that the first annual meeting 
of the Parker Society was held. The Society was formed 
in 1840, and completed its work in 1855. It was founded 
for the purpose of " reprinting, without abridgment, altera 
tion, or omission, the best Works of the Fathers and early 
Writers of the Reformed English Church, published in the 
period between the accession of King Edward VI. and the 
death of Queen Elizabeth ; secondly, the printing of such 
remains of other Writers of the Sixteenth Century as 
may appear desirable (including, under both classes, some 
of the early English Translations of the Foreign Re 
formers) ; and thirdly, the printing of some manuscripts 
of the same authors, hitherto unpublished." * There can 
be no doubt that the object of the promoters of the Parker 
Society was to counteract, as far as possible, the influence 
of certain portions of the Library of Anglo-Catholic Theology } 
issued by the Tractarians, and including the works of 
several Laudian Divines of the seventeenth century, and 
the Nonjurors. Lord Ashley became the first President 
of the Parker Society, and from the commencement of its 
operations it was most successful. Its first annual report 
stated that no fewer than upwards of 6000 annual sub 
scriptions of one guinea each had been received. Amongst 
the subscribers were the Dowager Queen Adelaide, Prince 
Albert, the King of Prussia, the Dukes of Kent, Sussex, 
Devonshire, and Sutherland, and the Bishops of London, 

1 Some Difficulties in the late Charge of the Bishop of Oxford. By William 
Goode, M.A., p. 30. London: 1842. 

2 Provincial Letters from the County -Palatine of Durham, exhibiting the 
Nature and Tendency of the Principles put forth by the Writers of the Tracts for 
the Times, and their various Allies and Associates. By the Rev. G. Stanley 
Faber. Two vols. 1842. 

3 First Annual Report of the Parker Society, 1842, p. 10. 


Durham, Winchester, Lincoln, Rochester, Llandaff, Ches 
ter, Worcester, Ripon, Peterborough, Lichfield, Chichester, 
Worcester, and Sodor and Man. The second annual 
report announced that for 1843 7500 subscriptions had 
come in. In 1849 it was reported that the Duchess of 
Kent and the Archbishops of Canterbury and York had 
become subscribers. In issuing the thirteenth and final 
report the Committee of the Parker Society state that 
they had published in all fifty-five volumes of the writings 
of the Protestant Reformers, including an Index Volume 
to the whole of their publications. These volumes con 
tain the writings of Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, Jewel, 
Hooper, Bradford, Nowell, Whitaker, and other promi 
nent men of the sixteenth century. Those who wish to 
find strong arguments against Ritualistic doctrines, drawn 
from the Bible and the writings of the Fathers, cannot 
do better than consult the publications of the Parker 


Dr. Pusey s sermon on The Holy Eucharist Denounced to the Vice- 
Chancellor The Six Doctors Their opinion of the sermon 
Private negotiations with Pusey Pusey suspended for two years 
His protest Dr. Hawkins explanatory letter Proposed friendly 
prosecution Lord Camoys on Pusey s sermon Curious Clerical 
Libel Case An extraordinary Clerical Brawling Case Protests 
against Puseyism The English Churchman started by the Pusey- 
ites Newman s progress Romeward He resigns St. Mary s and 
retires to Littlemore Archdeacon Wilberforce on " the insane love 
for Rome " Palmer s Narrative of Events Pusey issues " adapted " 
Roman Catholic books of devotion Newman tells him they will 
"promote the cause of the Church of Rome" Hook thinks "they 
will make men Infidels" Extracts from these books What Pius 
IX. said about Dr. Pusey Bishop Blomfield on the effect of adapted 
Roman books Puseyites advocate Ecclesiastical Prosecutions of 
Protestant clergy The Bishop of Exeter and the Surplice in the 
Pulpit Legality of the Black Gown in the Pulpit Ward s Ideal of 
a Christian Church Puseyite attack on Dr. Symons Defeated 
Attempt to prosecute the Rev. James Garbett Failure Stone 
Altars and Credence Tables Faulkener v. Litchfield Judgment 
of the Court of Arches The Cambridge Camden Society De 
nounced by the Rev. F. Close. 

THE most important ecclesiastical event in the year 1843 
was the sermon on The Holy Eucharist a Comfort to the 
Penitent, preached by Dr. Pusey before the University on 
the fourth Sunday after Easter, which led to his being 
suspended from preaching in the University pulpit for two 
years. In this sermon he taught, in unmistakable terms, the 
doctrine of the Real Presence in the consecrated elements, 
and what is termed the Eucharistic Sacrifice. The fol 
lowing extracts from the sermon show what his teaching 
was on this subject : 

"And we, if we are wise, shall never ask how they can be 
elements of this world and yet His very Body and Blood." * 

1 The Holy Eucharist a Comfort to the Penitent, p. 7. Oxford : 1843. 



"The same reality of the Divine Gift makes It Angels food to 
the Saint, the ransom to the sinner. And both because It is the 
Body and Blood of Christ. Were it only a thankful commemoration 
of His redeeming love, or only a showing forth of His death, or a 
strengthening only and refreshing of the soul, it were indeed a reason 
able service, but it would have no direct healing for the sinner. To 
him its special joy is that it is his Redeemer s very Broken Body, It 
is His Blood, which was shed for the remission of his sins. In the 
words of the Ancient Church, he drinks his ransom, he eateth that, 
the very Body and Blood of the Lord, the only Sacrifice for sin, 
God poureth out for him yet the most precious Blood of His 
Only Begotten. " 1 

"And this may have been another truth, which our Lord in 
tended to convey to us, when He pronounced the words as the form 
which consecrates the sacramental elements into His Body and 
Blood, that that Precious Blood is still, in continuance and applica 
tion of His One Oblation once made upon the Cross, poured out 
for us now, conveying to our souls, as being His Blood, with the 
other benefits of His Passion, the remission of our sins also. . . . 
That which is in the Cup, S. Chrysostome paraphrases, is that 
which flowed from His side, and of that do we partake. How 
should we approach His Sacred Side, and remain leprous still? 
Touching with our very lips that cleansing Blood, how may we not, 
with the Ancient Church, confess, * Lo, this hath touched my lips, 
and shall take away mine iniquities and cleanse my sins ? " 2 

The Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity, Dr. Faussett, 
denounced the sermon at once to the Vice-Chancellor 
(Dr. Wynter), and requested him to apply to Pusey for a 
copy of his sermon, in order that the soundness of its 
doctrine might be tested. In sending this request on to 
Pusey the Vice-Chancellor wrote : " I do not know that 
at this period of time it is necessary that I should express 
my own opinion upon it [Pusey s sermon, which he had 
heard preached]. But in candour and fairness I think it 
right to confess that its general scope and certain par 
ticular passages have awakened in my mind painful doubts 
with regard to its strict conformity to the doctrines of the 
Reformed Church of England." 3 After a delay of a few 

1 The Holy Eucharist a Comfort to the Penitent, p. 18. 

2 Ibid. pp. 22, 23. 

3 Life of Dr. Pusey ; vol. ii. p. 311. 


days, and the insertion by him into the manuscript of 
certain references to the writings of the Fathers, Pusey 
sent his sermon as requested, together with a letter, in 
which he said : " I felt so entirely sure that I heartily 
concur with the doctrine of the Church of England, I 
have so often and decidedly expressed my rejection of the 
doctrine of Transubstantiation, and the Canons of the 
Council of Trent upon it, that, neither before nor after 
preaching my sermon, had I the slightest thought that 
any could arraign it as contrary to the doctrines of our 
Church " ; and, he added : " I believe that after Con 
secration the Holy Elements are in their natural sub 
stances bread and wine, and yet are also the Body and 
Blood of Christ. This I believe is a mystery." 1 He 
concluded with a request that the Vice-Chancellor would 
t{ choose that course allowed by the Statute which permits 
the accused to answer for himself." The Vice-Chancellor 
thereupon appointed six Doctors as judges to try the case, 
of whom he was himself one. They met for the first time 
on May 24th, when the sermon was read to them and 
discussed. They met again on May 27th, when the greater 
number of them brought with them separate written 
opinions on the sermon. One of the number, Dr. Jelf, a 
personal friend of Pusey s, who had consented to be one 
of his judges " with the hope of benefiting " him, 2 said 
that he did not think the sermon contrary to the teaching 
of the Church of England ; but even he had to acknow 
ledge that there was in it " much that is objectionable in 
tone, and language, and tendency." 3 Having heard the 
opinion of the Court, the Vice-Chancellor declared that he 
" considered Dr. Pusey guilty of the charge made against 
him namely, that he had preached certain things which 
were either dissonant from or contrary to the doctrine of 
the Church of England." 4 

Dr. Pusey s request to be heard personally at the trial 
was not acceded to. The biographer of Bishop Samuel 
Wilberf orce says that, " The Statute under which the Board 

1 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. ii. p. 313. 2 Ibid. p. 315. 

8 Ibid. p. 317. 4 Ibid. p. 317. 


was appointed gave the accused the right to claim a hearing 
in his own defence " ; 1 but this was not the case. One of 
the three eminent Counsel, later on employed (by Pusey) to 
give a legal opinion on the case (the Solicitor-General), gave 
it as his opinion that the Statute " did not necessarily require 
a hearing." 2 Canon Liddon says expressly that : " It was 
true that the Statute did not provide in express terms that 
the author of a delated sermon should be heard in expla 
nation or defence of his language." 3 Nevertheless it seems 
that it was open to the Vice-Chancellor to have granted 
Pusey s request, and I think it is much to be regretted that 
he did not do so. I do not, however, suppose that if 
Pusey had thus personally appeared before his judges that 
it would have altered their decision ; and I believe that 
their judgment when given was a just one. Many a just 
judgment has been given even after a faulty trial. Yet, 
strictly speaking, Pusey s friends of the present day are not 
accurate in saying that he had no "hearing" before judg 
ment was published against him ; nor is it correct to state 
that his judges did not mention to him particular passages 
of his sermon which they considered unsound. It is true 
they did not hear his actual voice ; but they had before 
them, and seriously considered, a lengthy statement in self- 
defence and explanation from \\\s pen ; and in this sense 
of the word he was not condemned unheard. And that 
written statement of his was based upon particular extracts 
from his sermons to which his attention had been called 
privately by the Vice-Chancellor, who requested a retracta 
tion of some of the specified statements of Pusey. The 
two documents forwarded to Pusey from the Vice-Chan- 
cellor, containing these extracts, are published in full in 
the Life of Dr. Pusey, pages 323, 324; and his reply, de 
fending and explaining his position, fill four closely printed 
pages of that Life, from page 364 to 368. " On the after 
noon of Thursday, June i," says Canon Liddon, "the 
Vice-Chancellor and the Six Doctors met for a third time, 
and in order to consider Pusey s reply. That it did not 

1 Life of Bishop Wilberforce> vol. i. p. 228. 

2 Life of Dr. Pusey > vol. ii. p. 354. 3 Ibid. p. 317. 


satisfy them goes without saying." l On the following day 
the Vice-Chancellor published the sentence of suspension 
of Dr. Pusey from preaching in the University pulpit. On 
the same day Pusey published and circulated a protest 
against the sentence, in which occurs the following startling 
statement: " I have ground to think that, as no propositions 
out of my sermon have been exhibited to me as at variance 
with the doctrine of our Church, so neither can they." 2 The 
negotiations which had taken place between the Vice- 
Chancellor and Pusey were, by the former s request, treated 
as secret and confidential. Were it not for this, I do not 
think Pusey could ever have dared to make the untrue 
statement contained in the extract from his protest just 
given. That Pusey himself thought he had had some 
opportunity of defending himself is clear from the private 
letter he sent to the Vice-Chancellor on the day of the 
sentence and protest : " It does seem to me," he wrote, 
" to be so utterly contrary to all principles of justice and 
equity (not to speak of charity) to afford me no further 
opportunity of vindication, that I can only say I pray that my 
judges may not, in the Great Day, receive the measure 
which they have dealt to me." 3 He had, therefore, on his 
own showing, " some opportunity of vindication " of his 
position, as the words " no further opportunity " implies ; 
but he thought the opportunity was not sufficient ; and in 
this, to a certain extent, I am disposed to agree with him. 
But nothing I have been able to discover justifies him in 
asserting that no propositions from his sermon had been 
exhibited to him. Rumours soon got abroad challenging 
the veracity of Pusey. They troubled him exceedingly, 
and no wonder. So he thought he would draw a red 
herring across the trail of his opponents, by shifting the 
controversy, from the truthfulness of his protest and his 
own reputation, to the merits of the sermon itself, and this 
by publishing the much criticised discourse. So, on June 
nth, he wrote to Newman : "Ward told me yesterday 
evening some statements in the Morning Chronicle about 
my Protest being Jesuitical, every one here being dis- 

1 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. ii. p. 325. 

2 Ibid. p. 329. 8 Ibid. p. 330. 


gusted at it/ &c., which makes it necessary to determine 
how to act. One line to which I have been inclining this 
morning, is to let these things die a natural death, commit 
my own reputation to God, stop privately the Protest in 
London, and bring out my sermon, which will at once shift 
the battle from these grounds to the theological questions. . . . 
I feared, as soon as I knew it, that they would make out a 
plausible case of inaccuracy against me; people will believe 
just as they wish, and the whole controversy will be about 
my veracity, which will indispose people to the truths of 
the sermon when it appears." x Tactics such as these were 
worthy of one who had already obtained a character for 
Jesuitical conduct. An explanation published by Dr. Haw 
kins, one of the Six Doctors, on December 31, 1844, in 
the form of a letter to the Bishop of Exeter, may here be 
quoted : 

" I will give," wrote Dr. Hawkins, " some account of the pro 
ceedings such as, I hope, may show that, if they were in any way 
technically informal, they were substantially correct and just. 

" It was, of course, our duty to act under the Statute ; we had 
no power to amend it, and having ascertained the sense of the 
Statute as correctly as we could, with the aid of those recorded 
precedents to which we had access, we were satisfied that our 
business in the first instance was exclusively with the written 
sermon. If, indeed, the preacher could produce no copy of his 
discourse, the Statute expressly provided that he should be called 
upon to answer personally concerning the matters of which he was 
suspected or accused ; but if (as in this instance) he delivered an 
authentic copy of the sermon, there was no room for evidence or cross- 
examination, and we had only to consider the sermon itself, not 
discussing with the writer the doctrines which it contained, but compar 
ing them with the formularies of the Church. This painful duty, 
accordingly, we endeavoured to discharge as carefully as we could. 

" Yet, in point of fact, we had also before us, at that time, some ex 
planation and defence of the sermon from the author. For Dr. Pusey sent 
a letter with the sermon, explaining his sentiments at greater length 
with reference to the passage which was the most likely to be mis 
construed; and he both prefaced his copy of the sermon and 
accompanied it throughout with parallel passages from older Divines 

1 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. ii. p. 336. 


and from the Fathers, intended to justify the expressions which he 
had used. 

" But the judgment upon the sermon was only the first stage of 
the proceedings. The Vice-Chancellor, having now to consider the 
question as it respected the writer, could not forget that a writer s 
meaning might be misapprehended, or his expressions admit of 
qualification or correction, and even if in themselves censurable, 
might be no proof that the author entertained unsound opinions. 
For the purpose of preventing such misapprehensions, therefore, he 
entered into communication with Dr. Pusey in the interval between 
the delivery of the judgment upon the sermon (May 27) and the 
sentence issuing against the preacher (June 2). 

"It is true, the Vice-Chancellor, who is as kind as he is 
upright, did not desire the writer to wait upon him, nor did he 
call upon the writer, nor did he consider it his duty to enter into 
controversy with the preacher concerning points of doctrine, and did 
not in this sense hear him ; but he sent to Dr. Pusey, by his most 
intimate friend, written papers, stating the specific objections taken to 
his discourse, and giving him opportunity to disclaim any meaning 
improperly attached to his expressions, and to declare his adherence 
to those parts of our Articles and formularies with which, under 
such imputed meanings, his expressions had appeared to be at vari 
ance. Dr. Pusey replied to these communications at some length, but 
the papers not having proved satisfactory to him, and his answers 
having failed to satisfy the Vice-Chancellor, the result was made 
known to the assessors, and the sentence issued." 1 

In reply to this letter, Dr. Pusey wrote : " It is my 
duty to state explicitly that the communications made to 
me, after my sermon had been condemned, were expressly 
declared by the Vice-Chancellor to have been made with 
a view to recantation, not to explanation 2 

Of course the suspension created a great commotion 
in the ranks of those who, by this time, had become 
popularly known as Puseyites ; and a great sensation was 
produced throughout the country. An effort was made 
to obtain a reversal of the sentence by an appeal to the 
secular Law Courts ; but it fell through. Then a scheme 
was planned for a friendly lawsuit, in which one of 
Pusey s friends should be prosecutor and he the defend- 

1 English Churchman, January 9, 1845, P- I 9- 

2 Ibid. p. 31. 


ant, on a charge of preaching false doctrine in his sermon, 
contrary to the teaching of the Church of England. Dr. 
Hook was one of the first to suggest this plan. " I should 
think," he wrote to Pusey on June 4th, "you ought to 
demand of the Bishop an investigation under the Church 
Discipline Act." l Consultations with the lawyers took up 
a considerable time, but at length, on October 12, 1844, 
seventeen months after the sermon was preached, Pusey 
wrote to the Bishop of Oxford announcing the proposed 
friendly prosecution. "A friend of my own (Mr. Wood- 
gate) will apply to your lordship to issue a Commission on 
my printing a sermon which had been already condemned 
in the University. Had the sermon been rightly con 
demned, this would have been a most grave offence, much 
graver than preaching it originally. I do then most 
earnestly implore your lordship not to refuse the Com 
mission. I have no anxiety whatever about the issue if 
you grant it." 2 It is, I may here remark, wonderful to 
behold the love for ecclesiastical prosecutions early mani 
fested by the Puseyites, when they expected results satis 
factory to themselves. The Bishop of Oxford, before 
giving his decision, sought the advice of the Archbishop 
of Canterbury. That prelate was strongly against the issue 
of a Commission. He told the Bishop that the Church 
Discipline Act gave him the right to veto the proposed 
prosecution, and he warned him against being a party to 
" a transaction of rather a dubious character, certainly not 
straightforward." 3 Acting on this advice, the Bishop 
wrote to Pusey, on November 5th, declining to grant the 
Commission asked for : " I must distinctly state," wrote 
the Bishop, "that I cannot consent to become a party to 
what I consider not to be a straightforward proceeding." 4 

It was a great blow to the Puseyite party, but it was 
nothing more than they deserved. The sermon was dis 
tinctly contrary to the teaching of the Church of England, 
and it could only rejoice the hearts of her avowed enemies. 
Two years later Newman pointed out that in this sermon, 
out of 140 texts of the Fathers cited by Pusey, only four 

1 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. ii. p. 349. 

2 Ibid. p. 357. 3 Ibid. p. 359. 4 Ibid. p. 360. 


were from the Fathers of the first three centuries. 1 These 
quotations from the Fathers, together with those from 
Anglican Divines cited in the appendix to the sermon, were 
exhaustively dealt with, later on, by the Rev. William 
Goode, in his work on The Nature of Christ s Presence in 
the Eucharist, published in two volumes in 1856. Of course, 
Pusey s sermon rejoiced the Romanists. At the annual 
meeting of the Roman Catholic Institute of Great Britain, 
held on June 12, 1843, the Chairman, Lord Camoys, 
said : 

"Look at the controversy now going on in the Established Church, 
especially at Oxford. (Cheers.) There was one Regius Professor 
(Dr. Pusey) just condemned and suspended for having advocated the 
doctrine of the Real Presence in the Eucharist. . . . He had heard 
at one of the meetings of the Institute a hope expressed that they 
(the Catholics) might live to see the day when High Mass would 
be celebrated in Westminster Abbey. (Tremendous cheering.) He 
knew not how probable such an event might be, but this they knew, 
that the doctrine of the Mass had been preached in the Cathedral of 
the University of Oxford (loud cheering) and it had been autho 
ritatively declared, that if Dr. Pusey s sermon had not been con 
demned (as we understood the noble lord), six or seven Colleges of 
Oxford University were ready to have Mass said directly. (Tre 
mendous cheering and applause.) There was, indeed, a very slender 
barrier between Puseyism and the Church of Rome." 

A curious clerical libel action was heard this year, on 
March 25th, at Cambridge, before Lord Chief Justice 
Tindal, in which the Rev. Mr. Belaney sought to recover 
damages from the Rev. Mr. Totton, Rector of Debden, in 
consequence of a libellous letter written by the defendant 
concerning the plaintiff. It appeared that Mr. Belaney had 
been employed by Mr. Totton as Curate, and that he had 
altered the services in a High Church direction. This 
annoyed the Rector very much, and after Mr. Belaney 
had ceased to be Curate, he wrote the letter complained 
of, in which he said that : " So long as Mr. Belaney, under 
the influence of a vile spirit of rancour and revenge, con 
tinued to visit the parish, and industriously fomented dis- 

1 Life and Times of Cardinal Wiseman, vol. i. p. 434. 
8 Catholic Magazine^ vol. ii. for 1843, pp. 58, 59. 


cord, no harmony could exist ; " and that " he is, how 
ever, what I always thought him, a Papist in disguise." 
The jury gave a verdict for Mr. Belaney, damages forty 
shillings. 1 

A singular case of clerical brawling, Langley v. Burder, 
came before the Judicial Committee of Privy Council this 
year. The Rev. William Hawkes Langley, Perpetual Curate 
of Wheatley, Oxon., was, in 1841, prosecuted by the Bishop 
of Oxford (through his secretary, Mr. Burder), under the 
Church Discipline Act, for brawling in his own Parish 
Church during Divine Service ! The case was heard in 
the Court of Arches, before Sir H. Jenner Fust. It was 
alleged that, on Sunday, May 9, 1841, while conducting 
Divine Service, and shortly before the conclusion of the 
Litany, the defendant, "in a chiding, quarrelsome, and 
brawling manner," addressed the congregation, and said 
amongst other things : 

"You were, perhaps, surprised at the pause I made at the end of 
the prayer, but it reminded me of my enemies. I have this morning 
received a letter from the Archdeacon, offering some clergyman to 
do duty for me : some one in the congregation has had the audacity 
to write to the Archdeacon on the subject. Who has had the audacity 
to do this ? Is it a Puseyite, who wants to introduce Popery into 
the parish ? I will, however, take care they never shall, as I will do 
my duty myself. I have preached the Gospel, and delivered my 
own soul, whether the people will hear, or whether they will 

Mr. Langley then referred, in indignant terms, to certain 
charges against his personal character, and denied them 
emphatically. It was charged against him that "during the 
delivery of this address, he was in a very excited and im 
passioned state, and frequently struck the reading desk 
and the books thereon, in a very violent manner, with his 
clenched fist, and by such improper and incorrect conduct 
gave great offence to the congregation then assembled in 
the church, and reflected scandal and disgrace on his sacred 
profession." One would have thought that such conduct 
might easily have been dealt with by the Bishop outside of 

1 English Churchman, March 30, 1843, p. 199. 


Court. The fact that Bishop Bagot s opinions were strongly 
in favour of the Tractarians, though he did not go with 
them in every particular, might have induced him to 
abstain from prosecuting a clergyman for a speech in 
which he attacked the Puseyites. Of course, it was very 
indiscreet on Mr. Langley s part to be so impatient. He 
might have waited until he had got into the pulpit, 
and then have delivered it in safety from a charge of 
brawling. Anyhow, the case was heard in the Court of 
Arches it was the first case under the new Church Dis 
cipline Act and on June 27, 1842, Sir H. Jenner Fust 
delivered judgment. The defence had been, he said, that 
a conspiracy existed against Mr. Langley amongst the 
parishioners, and that the Bishop was the head of the 
conspiracy ; but he (the Judge) considered the defence an 
aggravation of the offence, and therefore he sentenced 
Mr. Langley to be suspended from his living for eight 
months, and to pay the costs of the case. It was demanded 
by the plaintiff that Mr. Langley should not be readmitted 
to his duties until he produced a certificate of good be 
haviour ; but this the Judge very properly refused to grant. 
Mr. Langley appealed against the judgment to the Judicial 
Committee of Privy Council, who, on December 4, 1843, 
delivered judgment, confirming the sentence against 
him. 1 

I mention this interesting case here, partly to show that 
the High Church party were the first to put the Church 
Discipline Act into force, and also because the general 
question of brawling has of late become very prominent 
amongst us. I have been unable to find any proof against 
the personal character of Mr. Langley, though it is evident 
that charges had been brought against him. I believe that 
if he had been known to be an immoral man, the Bishop 
would have gone further, and prosecuted him on that 
account. I have no doubt that my Ritualistic readers will 
think me uncharitable, yet I cannot help expressing the 
opinion that if Mr. Langley had abstained, on that Sunday 
morning, from attacking the Puseyites, he would have 

1 Brodrick and Freemantle s Jiidgments of the Judicial Committee of Privy 
Council, pp. 39-43. 


escaped with a private Episcopal censure for his conduct. 
Anyhow, the sentence of suspension for eight months for 
such an offence was inexcusably severe. 

Several public protests against Puseyism were made by 
Protestant Churchmen during 1843. One of these was from 
the inhabitants of Blackburn and neighbourhood, and was 
addressed to the Bishop of Chester (Dr. John Bird). " We 
feel," they said, " ourselves bound by the ties both of duty 
and of gratitude to acknowledge our lasting obligations to 
your lordship for your firm, consistent, and uncompromis 
ing resistance to the system of those Tractarian divines, 
who, true to their self-assumed title of Ecclesiastical 
agitators/ declare their determination to intrude upon the 
peace of the contented, and raise doubts in the minds of the 
uncomplaining ; vex the Church with controversy, alarm 
serious men, and interrupt the established order of things ; 
set the father against the son, and the mother against the 
daughter. " In replying to this address of protest against 
Puseyism, the Bishop of Chester wrote : " I rejoice in the 
proof it affords that the principles established by our 
Reformers are dear to so many hearts ; that so many in 
whose spiritual welfare I am concerned regard with just 
horror any departure from the truth as it is in Jesus ; 
whether it be by the way of return to exploded errors, or 
under the insidious pretence of development of undis 
covered mystery." l An address from the inhabitants of 
Bolton was also sent to the Bishop of Chester, protesting 
against " the evil spirit and false doctrines " of the Puseyites. 
An address to the Vice-Chancellor and Heads of Houses in 
Oxford was adopted at a meeting, over which Lord Ashley 
presided, and was subsequently signed largely, in which 
"an earnest hope" was expressed "that the authorities of 
the University will take such steps as are by the constitu 
tion of the whole body and of the several Colleges open to 
them, for protecting the youth committed to their care 
from the dangerous [anti- Protestant] influence to which we 
have referred, and for securing to them for the future only 
such tuition as is in strict accordance with the prin- 

1 English Churchman, October 5, 1843, P- 627. 


ciples of the Protestant Church and Constitution of these 
realms." l 

In this year protests from parishioners against altera 
tions made in the mode of conducting Divine Service by 
Puseyite clergymen became somewhat numerous. The 
English Churchman newspaper was started by the Puseyites 
on January 5, 1843, and soon its columns were filled with 
discussions and comments on such subjects as Altar Cover 
ings, Alternate Chanting, Black Letter Saints, Christian 
Ceremonial, Copes, Crosses on the Altar, Decoration of 
Churches, Fast Days, Font Covers, Oblations in the Euch 
arist, Position of the Celebrant Priest, Reserve, and Stone 
Altars, thus affording to the public a clear proof of the 
advance of Puseyism in a Romeward direction. The 
English Churchman still continues to be published, but it 
no longer advocates the Sacerdotal cause. It has become 
the most outspoken of all papers against Ritualism. 

During 1843 Newman made rapid strides in the direc 
tion of Rome. Early in the year he withdrew whatever he 
had written against the Church of Rome, and expressed 
his regret for having so written. He told his friend Mr. J. 
R. Hope-Scott, as we have already seen, with reference to 
this act, that he had "to eat a few dirty words." 2 On 
August 3oth Newman wrote to a lady : " We shall not 
leave the Church as others may. We have no longings 
for Rome." 3 Only two days later he wrote a letter, 
marked " Confidential," to the Rev. J. B. Mozley, an 
nouncing his forthcoming resignation of the living of St. 
Mary s, Oxford, and adding : " The truth then is, I am not 
a good son enough of the Church of England to feel I 
can in conscience hold preferment under her. / love the 
Church of Rome too well. Now please burn this, there s a 
good fellow, for you sometimes let letters lie on your 
mantelpiece." 4 Four weeks later Newman wrote to his 
sister, on September 2Qth : " I do so despair of the Church 
of England, and am so evidently cast off by her, and, on 

1 English Churchman, July 27, 1843, p. 467. 

2 Memoirs of James Hope-Scott t vol. ii. p. 19. 

3 Newman s Letters, vol. ii. p. 42 [. 

4 Ibid. p. 423. 


the other hand, I am so drawn to the Church of Rome, that 
I think it safer, as a matter of honesty, not to keep my 
living. This is a very different thing from having any in 
tention of joining the Church of Rome." 1 With such views 
most people would have been of the opinion that the only 
" honest " course would have been to have joined the 
Church of Rome at once. But he remained in the Church 
of England for another two years, " loving the Church of 
Rome " all the time, and with " despair " in his heart con 
cerning the Church of England. Indeed, as early as 
October 25, 1843, he declared : " I think the Church of 
Rome the Catholic Church, and ours not part of the 
Catholic Church, because not in communion with Rome." 2 
In accordance with this inconsistent position he told the 
Rev. J. B. Mozley, on November 24th : " I am now pub 
lishing sermons, which speak more confidently about our 
position than I inwardly feel, but I think it right and do 
not care for seeming inconsistent." 3 Six weeks later 
Newman wrote to the Rev. T. W. Allies : " I will say to 
you, what the occasion makes me say, but which I should 
not like repeated as from me, that I am not to be trusted. 
Others say this freely ; but I feel it myself too certainly, 
though it is not well openly to profess it." 4 Newman re 
signed the living of St. Mary s on September i6th, and 
removed to Littlemore, the Vicarage of which he retained, 
however, only for a short time, and then he retired into lay 
communion. On September 25th he preached at Little- 
more the sermon on "The Parting of Friends," which has 
generally been considered a kind of farewell to the Church 
of England. The story of the Littlemore Monastery, which 
at this period was in full operation, I have related else 
where. 5 

The opinion which Archdeacon Samuel Wilberforce 
had this year formed of Puseyism and the Romeward 
Movement, may profitably be quoted here. Writing to his 
brother Henry, on August 18, 1843, about a Curate, he 

1 Newman s Letters, vol. ii. p. 425. 

2 Newman s Apologia, p. 351. 

3 Newman Letters, vol. ii. p. 430. 

4 A Life s Decision. By T. W. Allies, 2nd edition, p. 41. London : 1894. 
6 Secret History of the Oxford Movement, chap. i. 


said : " It is so likely that he has been misrepresented, so 
likely that preaching, it may be injudiciously, against what 
with him I think the perils of our Church from the insane love 
of Rome, which has possessed many of the followers of the 
Tract Movement." J " For you must," continued the 
Archdeacon, "remember, dearest H., that your own feel 
ings are here a bad guide. You must remember that men 
who, like myself, are not Low Churchmen, that even we 
feel in the very centre of our hearts that the greatest veri 
ties of the inner Christian life are absolutely perilled by the 
Tract system" 

The Tractarians were made very uncomfortable this 
year by an exposure of their Romanising work by one 
who up to that time they had considered as one of their 
own leaders the Rev. William Palmer, of Worcester Col 
lege, Oxford. Mr. Palmer was one of the first to join the 
Oxford Movement, and therefore the pamphlet he wrote 
on the subject naturally created a sensation. It was en 
titled: A Narrative of Events Connected with the Publication 
of " The Tracts for the Times" With Reflections on Existing 
Tendencies to Romanism? In issuing this pamphlet, Mr. 
Palmer withdrew none of the opinions on Church govern 
ment and doctrine which he had previously held ; nor did 
he in any way censure the Tracts for the Times ; but he saw 
clearly that a party had arisen within the Church of Eng 
land bent on leading her to Rome, and in his pamphlet he 
proved this by numerous quotations from the writings of the 
advanced section, more especially from the British Critic ; 
and he even went so far as to declare that there were those 
amongst them who " look on the Papal Supremacy, the 
Invocation of Saints, &c., as Divinely instituted." 3 

" The only difficulty," wrote Mr. Palmer, " with which those 
who uphold Church principles have had to contend, is the imputa 
tion of a tendency to Popery. The continual assertion of our 
opponents of all kinds has been, that Romanism is the legitimate 

1 Life of Bishop Wilberforce, vol. i. p. 288. 

2 It was republished by the author in 1883, with a lengthy Introduction and 
Supplement. London : Rivingtons. 

3 Narrative of Events Connected with the Tracts for the Times, 3rd edition 
p. 64. Oxford : Parker. 1843. 


conclusion of our principles. Romanists, Dissenters, Latitudin- 
arians, and many others have reiterated the assertion, till the world 
is nearly persuaded of its truth. But what can we say what de 
fence can be made, when it is undeniable that Romanism, in its very 
f idlest extent, has advocates amongst ourselves ; that they have in 
fluence in the British Critic; that they are on terms of intimacy 
and confidence with leading men ; that no public protest is entered 
against their proceedings by the advocates of Church principles ? It 
is the conviction of the necessity of making some attempt, however 
feeble, to arrest an intolerable evil, which has induced me to publish 
this narrative of our proceedings." J 

Yet, after all, though Mr. Palmer could not see it, the 
Romanising teaching against which he protested, was but the 
natural development of the sacerdotal teaching of the Tracts 
for the Times. Mr. Palmer s testimony against his former 
friends is, however, all the stronger, as coming from one 
who himself was a High Churchman of a decided type. 
The Oxford Movement made rapid progress towards Rome 
in 1843. 

But still more rapid was the progress in 1844. It was 
in this year that Dr. Pusey commenced the publication of 
Roman Catholic books of devotion, "Adapted to the Use of 
the English Church." He had an idea of translating the 
Breviary, but only a few small portions were circulated. 
He asked Newman s advice about it. That astute man at 
once saw how it would help the Church of Rome. " I am," 
he wrote to Pusey, " quite of opinion that any Breviary, 
however corrected, &c., will tend to prepare minds for the 
Church of Rome. I fully think you will be doing so by 
your publication ... I do not think our system will bear 
it. It is like sewing a new piece of cloth on an old garment. 
Did I wish to promote the cause of the Church of Rome, 
I should say, Do what you propose to do." 2 The Rev. 
W. K. Hamilton (afterwards Bishop of Salisbury), High 
Churchman though he was, viewed Pusey s adapted books 
with alarm, and wrote to tell him that they tended to foster 
an unrilial spirit in members of the Church of England. 3 
Archdeacon Samuel Wilberforce disliked them exceedingly. 

1 Palmer s Narrative of Events Connected with the Tracts for the Times, pp. 
69, 70. 

2 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. ii. p. 390. 3 Ibid. p. 394. 



He wrote on April 4, 1844 : " I opened yesterday Pusey s 
translation (just out) of Avrillon s mode of keeping Lent, 
with an introduction by Pusey. I think it fuller of sad and 
humiliating bits of superstition than anything of his I have 
yet seen." 1 Dr. Hook was indignant, and declared that one 
effect of these adapted works would be that they " will make 
men decided infidels." 5 It may be useful if we here give 
extracts from some of these adapted Romish books, and 
from the prefaces Pusey wrote to them, as justifying the 
dislike to them felt and expressed, not only by Evangelical 
Churchmen, but by High Churchmen also : 

" For both the large heads, under which these and the like wants 
would fall contemplation and self-discipline the spiritual writers 
of Foreign Churches have, as yet, some obvious advantages over our 
own ; for the discipline and knowledge of self, through that know 
ledge of the human heart which results from habitual confession ; for 
contemplation, in the Monastic Orders, as joining, in all cases, con 
templation and mental prayer with charity and mortification." 3 

" He who hears the word of God without attention, and without 
respect, is not less guilty than he who by carelessness should allow 
the Body of Jesus Christ to fall to the ground." 4 

" The most perfect Christians consecrate themselves to God in a 
Religious State only, that they may be the more separated from the 
world." 5 

" In vain do we strive to obtain heaven, and to expiate, by our 
repentance, the sins of which we have been guilty, if we are not 
assisted by Thy grace. We acknowledge our weakness ; but we 
know also that we can do all in Him who strengtheneth us. It is 
Thou alone who canst give to our labours and our fasts the accept- 
ableness which they need in order to appease Thy wrath, to efface our 
sin, to draw down upon us Thy mercy, and to obtain eternal life, 
which we hope for through the merits of Jesus Christ." 6 

"The rebellion of the body must be mortified by fasts, Disci 
plines, Hair Shirts, vigils, and other similar austerities, as discretion 
and obedience may teach." 7 

" Never resist the will of thy Superiors, but show them a ready 
obedience, executing promptly all their commands, and with most 

1 Life of Bishop Wilberforce, vol. i. p. 236. 

2 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. ii. p. 431. 

3 Avrillon s Guide to Passing Lent Holily, Pusey s Preface, p. xi. 

4 Ibid. p. 270. 5 Ibid. p. 282. 8 Ibid. p. 278. 
7 Scupoli s Spiritual Combat, p. 48. 


willingness such as humble thee, and are most opposed to thy natural 
will and inclination." l 

" Appearing once in the form of an infant to one of His pure 
and devoted creatures, she asked Him [Jesus] with great simplicity to 
recite the Angelical Salutation. He readily began : Hail Mary, full of 
grace, the Lord is with Thee, blessed art thou among women, and then 
stopped, being unwilling to praise Himself, in the words that follow." 2 

" Before Communion (whatever be our object in receiving It) we 
must cleanse and purify ourselves, if stained with mortal sin, in the 
Sacrament of Penance." 8 

" Then as the time of Communion approaches, think What it is 
thou art about to receive ! The Son of God, of Majesty Incom 
prehensible, before Whom the Heavens and all the powers therein 
do tremble. The Holy of Holies, the Spotless Mirror, and the 
Incomprehensible Purity, beside Whom no creature is clean. . . . 
Thou art (I say) about to receive God^ in Whose Hand are the life 
and death of the whole Universe." 4 

" When, thyself, about to communicate, enliven thy faith to see 
under the accidents of the consecrated elements, the true Lamb of 
God that taketh away sins." 5 

11 By the law of God we mean all that is contained in the Deca 
logue, and all ordinances emanating from a legitimate power, 
whether written, or authorised and confirmed by custom. We 
comprehend also the statutes and general regulations made by prelates 
and ecclesiastical superiors" 6 

" Happy, at least, is it, if they who think they hold most accu 
rately the corruption of nature, can even understand the language of 
the self-abhorrence of Saints. Take ... his who ever prayed that 
his sins might not bring the vengeance of God on the towns where 
he preached [ St. Dominic, Founder of the Inquisition which slew 
the Saints of God\ ; or of those who wept for their sins, until sight 
was impaired [ St. Francis of Assisium and St. Ignatius Loyola, 
the latter being the founder of the Jesuits] ; or his, who, having 
renounced all the riches and glories of this world, habitually ac 
counted his only fit dwelling to be hell, or being spit upon all night, 
counted no place fitter than his own face [ St. Francis Borgia, a 
Jesuit.]" 7 

" And now, in our entire ignorance of its very n-ature, the name 
of the Rosary or Beads * is associated only with ideas of super- 

1 Scupoli s Spiritual Combat, p. 47. 

2 Ibid. p. 89. 3 Ibid. p. 134. 
4 Ibid. p. 141. 5 Ibid. p. 190. 

6 The Foundations of the Spiritual Life. By F. Surin, a Jesuit Priest, p. 202. 

7 Ibid. % Pusey s Preface^ pp. xix., xx. 


stition, even in minds who, if they knew it, would be shocked at 
their own thoughts." l 

" It is almost the inevitable consequence of such compendious 
or arbitrary selections or substitutions of doctrine, as of Justifica 
tion by Faith, or even The Atonement for Christ Crucified, 
that in the end they contract men s faith." 2 

"After the use of the Exercitia Spiritualia of St. Ignatius 
[Loyola] had been introduced into Portugal (among other countries) 
with a wonderful change of life, it was reported in Coimbra that 
those who made these holy retreats had strange visions, which led 
them to extraordinary fervour." 3 

" The Manuel des Confesseurs, is a most valuable digest of the 
judgments of some of the most experienced Confessors of the 
Church, and of the greatest use, whether in the receiving of Con 
fessions, or the more ordinary spiritual ministrations." 4 

"CHRIST That thou mayest be more fully restored to My 
favour after thus confessing thy unrighteousness to Me, go and show 
thyself also to the Priest, to whom I have given the power of binding 
and of loosing. Whoso hideth his wickednesses shall not be put right, 
but he that confesses and forsakes them shall obtain mercy. My 
son, be not ashamed to tell the truth for thy soul s sake. There is 
a shame that bringeth sin, and there is a shame that bringeth glory. 
Open, then, thy conscience frankly and cincerely to him who is in 
My Stead, and he shall open Heaven to thee. . . . Master this 
preposterous shame ; humble thyself before My Priest, whom I have 
appointed in My Place, as My Ambassador, and thy counsellor and 
physician. Declare thy wickednesses, that thou mayest be justified." 6 

" We pray Thee, also, O Lord, Holy Father, for the souls of the 
faithful departed, especially that this great Sacrament of Thy Love 
may be to them salvation, joy, and refreshment. 6 

I have given a great deal of space to these extracts from 
Dr. Pusey s adapted Roman Catholic works, on the title 
page of each of which was printed the words : " Adapted 
to the Use of the English Church/ because he who was 
responsible for them became, at about this time, and con- 

1 The Foundations of the Spiritual Life, Pusey s Preface, p. xxvi. 

2 Ibid. p. xxix. 3 Ibid. p. liii. note. 

4 Ibid. p. Ivi. note. The book which Pusey thus highly commended, without any 
qualification, was one of the most filthy of all the filthy Confessional books pub 
lished in the Roman Church. When Pusey translated it in 1878, he left out the 
filthy reading as unsuited for English Confessors circumstances, but he did not 
condemn the thing itself. 

5 Horst s Paradise for the Christian Soul, vol. i. part iii. pp. 15-17- There 
seems something fearfully wicked in placing such words in the Saviour s mouth, as 
though Confession to Him were not sufficient. 6 Ibid. vol. ii. part v. p. 126. 


tinued until his death, the acknowledged leader of what I 
must term the Romeward Movement in the Church of 
England. These citations show most clearly how far Pusey 
had already gone in Popery and superstition, and whither 
he was leading his deluded disciples. These adapted Popish 
works had a very large circulation, and undoubtedly did 
much to lead many to Rome. There was much of truth 
in what Pope Pius IX. said of Pusey, in an interview with the 
Rev. A. P. Stanley (the future Dean of Westminster) in 
1866. In relating the interview Dean Stanley says : 

"He [the Pope] finally said, You know Pusey. When you 
meet him, give him this message from me that I compare him to a 
bell, which always sounds to invite the faithful to Church, and itself 
always remains outside. " 1 

The High Church Bishop of London (Dr. Blomfield) in 
his Charge, delivered in 1846, referred to, amongst others 
of the same class, these adapted Roman books of Pusey s 
though he did not mention Pusey by name. He said : 

" I confess that I cannot understand how any person, professing 
to be a member of our branch of the Church Catholic, can reconcile 
it to his conscience to be in any way accessory to proceedings the 
effect of which, upon the minds of those who are imperfectly in 
structed, must be to diminish the seeming importance of those 
fundamental differences which separate the Churches of England and 
Rome ; to make them dissatisfied with the doctrine and discipline of 
the one, and to habituate them to regard with complacency, and in 
due time with affection, the worst errors of the other. I can under 
stand this conduct on the part of one of that Society to whom it is 
permitted to disguise their real sentiments, and to assume any 
character which best enables them to propagate the errors of Rome; 
but I cannot comprehend the self-delusion by which any person 
pursuing this course can persuade himself that he is faithful to his 
solemn engagements as a clergyman of the English Church. I 
cannot but regard such a policy as more to be censured and feared 
than open, honest, undisguised hostility." 2 

During the year 1844 the Puseyites manifested an 
intense desire to expel some of their opponents from the 
Church of England by means of ecclesiastical prosecutions. 

1 Life of Dean Stanley, vol. ii. p. 358. 

2 Memoir of Bishop Blomfield, vol. ii. pp. 75, 76. 


Their chief organ, the English Churchman, was very ener 
getic in this direction. Some correspondents of that paper 
started a discussion on this subject early in the year, in 
consequence of a clerical Declaration in favour of Protestant 
principles which had just been issued. With reference to 
this Declaration one of them wrote : "It is their [the 
Bishops ] business to punish heresy, it is ours [the laity] to 
bring it under their notice. Let us, in vindication of our 
Mother s honour, now act on this principle. If the ob 
noxious document be really published in any official way, 
let a fund be immediately raised, and a committee named, 
for the purpose of proceeding in the Ecclesiastical Courts 
against the principal signer say the senior D.D. or the first 
of that rank on the list for heresy. I am very ignorant of 
ecclesiastical law ; but of course the first step would be to 
take counsel s advice as to the proper mode of proceeding." 1 
A month later another correspondent wrote : " I am pre 
pared to raise contributions, from clerical friends and 
others, with a view to share the expense of bringing to 
justice, in our Ecclesiastical Courts, those unfaithful 
Ministers of the Church who have in their late public 
Declaration proclaimed themselves heretics." 2 The De 
claration actually contained not a word of heresy from 
beginning to end, but a strong affirmation of Protestant 
doctrines such as any Evangelical clergyman of the present 
day would gladly sign. But it denied the Puseyite theory 
of Baptismal Regeneration, Apostolical Succession, and a 
Sacerdotal Priesthood, and affirmed the doctrine of Jus 
tification by Faith only, and that the Bible alone is the 
sole and only Rule of Faith. 8 It was very largely signed, 
and if the Puseyites could have had their own way those 
who signed it would soon have been deprived of their 
livings and curacies. 

Towards the close of September it was publicly an 
nounced in Exeter that two Church of England clergymen, 
the Rev. H. Bulteel, formerly Fellow of Exeter College, 

1 English Churchman, February I, 1844, p. 74. 

2 Ibid. March 7, 1844, p. 153. 

3 See the document in full in the English Churchman, January 25, 1844, 
pp. 59, 60. 


Oxford, and the Rev. J. Shore, M.A., would preach at the 
opening of the " Episcopal Free Church " in that city. 
Thereupon the English Churchman furiously demanded a 
prosecution of these clergymen. " The intended schismati- 
cal proceedings announced in the following advertisement 
show the necessity of formally and ecclesiastically depriving 
the rebellious clergy, so that there may no longer be any 
doubt as to whether they do or do not belong to us. ... 
We trust that the Lord Bishop of Exeter will set an ex 
ample to his brethren, and will proceed canonically against 
those of his clergy who refuse to conform to the rules of 
the Church." : A month later the English Churchman de 
voted a whole leading article to this subject, and declared : 
"To speak plainly, we desire, most earnestly and respect 
fully, to impress upon their lordships the Bishops, the 
important fact, that by allowing palpable heresy to be 
publicly preached and published, without public and per 
sonal censure of the offender, they are extensively alienating 
the confidence and attachment of some most valuable men 
in the Church. A jealous vigilance to detect the slightest 
appearance of heresy, and the prompt punishment of 
heretical teachers, have ever been among the most visible 
notes of the Catholic Church." 2 Not a word of denuncia 
tion was heard, from these Puseyite lovers of prosecution, 
against the " State Courts," or their interference with the 
Church, and I am convinced that if they had only consented 
to interpret the law as the Puseyites desired, their modern 
successors, the Ritualists, would have been, on the whole, 
quite content with things as they are. In that case there 
would not, by this time, have been left a Protestant clergy 
man in the Church of England. They would have been 
deprived of their livings long ago as so many heretics. 

The High Church Bishop of Exeter was ready enough 
to put pressure on the Evangelical clergy of his Diocese. 
On November iQth he issued a Pastoral Letter on " Ob 
servance of the Rubric in the Book of Common Prayer," 
in which he urged a stricter observance of the Rubrics ; 
and ordered all his clergy to wear the surplice in preaching. 

1 English Churchman, September 26, 1844, p. 613. 

2 Ibid. October 24, 1844, p. 677. 


"The law," said the Bishop, "beyond all question which can 
now arise, requires that the surplice be always used in the sermon, 
which is part of the Communion Service ; and as to all other times, 
whenever a sermon is part of the ministration of the parochial 
clergy, there is so little reason for question, that I resolve the 
doubt by requiring that the surplice be always used." 1 

The opposition to the use of the surplice in the pulpit 
was, however, too strong for the Bishop, who, within five 
weeks from issuing it, had to withdraw his order. He had 
issued an illegal order, founded on a mistaken interpreta 
tion of the law. The Black Gown in the pulpit is strictly 
legal. In the case of Robinson Wright v. Tugwell, judg 
ment was given in the Court of Appeal on November 28, 
1896, by Lord Justice Smith, who said : 

"The warrant in law for the Black Gown is constant use for 
centuries. Inasmuch as no positive law exists, and no objection 
against the legality of the Black Gown in the pulpit, which has 
ranged over three hundred years, can be found, and there is no 
decision that its use is illegal, I agree with what I understand Mr. 
Justice North to have held, that its use is not illegal." 2 

The principal ecclesiastical event in 1844 was the pub 
lication Joy the Rev. W. G. Ward of his Ideal of a Christian 
Church, in which he declared that he subscribed the Thirty- 
Nine Articles " in a non-natural sense," and that in doing 
so he " renounced no one Roman doctrine." " We find," 
he exclaimed, "oh most joyful, most wonderful, most 
unexpected sight ! We find the whole cycle of Roman 
doctrine gradually possessing numbers of English Church 
men." I have given elsewhere 3 a brief history of the 
controversy which arose out of this publication, and there 
fore I need say no more about it here, except to give below 
a list of the leading publications relating to it. 4 

1 English Churchman, December 5, 1844, p. 769. 

2 The Lord Chief Justice of England and Lord Justice Lindley agreed in this 
judgment, the text of which is printed in the Church Intelligencer, January 1897, 
pp. 5, 6. 

3 Secret History of the Oxford Movement f , chap. ix. 

4 I. The Ideal of a Christian Church. By the Rev. W. G. Ward, M.A., 2nd 
edition, pp. xiv., 600. London : James Toovey. 1844. 

2. Selections from a Work entitled " The Ideal of a Christian Church" Illus 
trative of its Tendency to Promote Dutifulness to the English Church, pp. 24. 
London : Toovey. 1844. 


At the beginning of the Michaelmas Term, 1844, Dr. 
Wynter s term of office as Vice-Chancellor expired The 
next in order of succession was Dr. Symons, Warden of 
Wadham College. Now Dr. Symons was a very decided 
Protestant, whose opposition to the Oxford Movement was 
very well known ; and besides all this he was one of the 
Six Doctors who had condemned Dr. Pusey, the previous 
year, for his sermon on The Holy Eucharist a Comfort to the 
Penitent. This last offence could not possibly be forgiven 
by Pusey s friends, who determined to show their vindic- 
tiveness by opposing the election of Dr. Symons as Vice- 
Chancellor. Pusey was very zealous in the new campaign 
against Symons. " I use no concealment now," he wrote 
to his brother, "if ever I did, that I think Dr. S.[ymons] 
ought to be opposed as a protest against heresy and here 
tical decisions. If the University accepted him without a 
protest, it seemed like making itself a party to it." 1 A 
prominent member of the Tractarian party wrote to the 
English Churchman, over the signature " N. E. S." : " It 
does then seem to me, what I have all along made it, a 

3. An Address to Members of Convocation In Protest against the Proposed 
Statute. By the Rev. W. G. Ward, M.A., pp. 56. London: Toovey. 1845. 

4. A Letter to the Vice-Chancellor In Connection with the Case of the Rev. 
W. G. Ward. By A. C. Tait, D.C.L. (afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury), 
pp. 22. London : W. Blackwood. 1845. 

5. A Letter to the Bishop of London On a Subject Connected with the Recent 
Proceedings at Oxford. By the Rev. Frederick Oakeley, M.A., pp. 39. London : 
Toovey. 1845. 

6. The New Statute and Mr. Ward. A Letter by the Rev. Frederick D. 
Maurice, pp. 31. 

7. Heads of Consideration On the Case of Mr. Ward. By the Rev. John 
Keble, M.A., pp. 15. Oxford : Parker. 1845. 

8. The Proposed Degradation and Declaration. By George Moberley, D.C.L. 
(afterwards Bishop of Salisbury), pp. 29. Oxford : Parker. 1845. 

9. Suggestions On the New Statute. By W. Gresley, M.A., Prebendary of 
Lichfield, pp. 13. London : James Burns. 1845. 

10. A Letter to the Hebdomadal Board On Air. Ward s Case. By the Rev. 
W B. Baxter, 2nd edition, pp. 14. London : James Burns. 1845. 

11. MDCCCXLV. The Month of January. Oxford. By W. Winstanley 
Hull, M.A., pp. 18. London : Seeley. 

12. An Earnest Appeal to the Members of the Oxford Convocation. By Henry 
ArthurWoodgate, B.D., pp. 9. London: Burns. 1845. 

13. A Defence of Voting against the Propositions to be Submitted to Convocation 
on February 13, 1845. B 7 w - F. Donkin, M.A., pp. 7. Oxford : Parker. 1845. 

14. The Claim to "Hold, as Distinct from Teaching," Explained. By 
Frederick Oakeley, M.A., pp. 24. London: Toovey. 1845. 

15. Subscription to the Articles. By George Dudley Ryder, M.A., pp. 42. 
London : Toovey. 1845. 

1 Life of Dr. Puiey^ vol. ii. p. 412. 


main item in the grounds for opposing Dr. Symons, that he 
was one of that body who did their best to set the mark of 
the beast on the Church of England." 1 Dr. Hook, when 
asked to go to Oxford and vote against the election of Dr. 
Symons, refused to do so, and gave his reasons in a letter 
to a friend : 

" Now, after the publication of Mr. Ward s book, which defends 
Popery on ultra-Protestant principles, and is therefore subversive 
both of principle and truth ; and after various publications which 
have appeared of late with the evident intention of introducing 
Mariolatry, in other words idolatry, into our Church, and of defend 
ing the very worst abominations of Popery, there are very many 
persons who, having devoted all the energies of a lifetime to the 
service of their beloved and holy mother, the Church of England, 
contending equally against Popery on the one hand, and ultra- 
Protestantism on the other, would shrink with abhorrence from any 
appearance of sanctioning these heresies. As we cannot take part 
against Dr, Symons without seeming to side with the Romanisers, 
we must stand aloof from the contest." 2 

The efforts of the Puseyites to defeat Dr. Symons were 
in vain. The election took place on October 8th, when 
882 votes were given for Dr. Symons, and only 183 against 
him. Small as the minority was, it afforded to the public 
evidence of the growing power of the Puseyites. 

In the month of May, the Rev. Charles Marriott, a 
prominent leader of the Tractarians, wrote to the Vice- 
Chancellor of Oxford, requiring him to summon a Board 
of Heresy to examine certain charges which he (Mr. Mar 
riott) had to bring against the Rev. James Garbett, Professor 
of Poetry, founded on a sermon preached by him before 
the University. I have not been able to learn what were 
the portions of Mr. Garbett s sermon against which Mr. 
Marriott protested as heretical, though I have no doubt it 
was some Protestant statement. On May 2Qth the Vice- 
Chancellor sent the following reply to Mr. Garbett : 

" The Vice-Chancellor begs to acknowledge the receipt of a 
copy of the sermon which, in consequence of a formal allegation of 
complaint, he requested Mr. Garbett to deliver to him, under the 

1 English Churchman, August 29, 1844, p. 549. 

2 Ibid. October 10, 1844, p. 641. 


provision of the Statute, Tit. xvi. sec. n. The Vice-Chancellor 
having had before him, since Friday, the 24th inst., the sermon 
which has thus been called in question, and having carefully con 
sidered what steps it might be his duty to take on the occasion, 
informs Mr. Garbett, without delay, that in the exercise of the 
discretion reserved to him by the Statute, he deems it unnecessary 
to institute any further proceedings." 

For the first time in the history of the Romeward Move 
ment, the legality of Stone Altars and Credence Tables was 
brought before the Ecclesiastical Courts this year. The 
Cambridge Camden Society had restored the Church of 
the Holy Sepulchre, Cambridge, commonly known as the 
Round Church, and towards the end of the year 1843 
handed over the Church thus restored to the Incumbent 
and Churchwardens. On February 14, 1844, the Incum 
bent, the Rev. R. R. Faulkener, issued a circular in which 
he asserted that during the restoration the Cambridge 
Camden Society had introduced into the Church " a Stone 
Altar, without the knowledge or consent of the Incum 
bent"; and also a Credence Table. The Churchwardens 
replied to this circular, taking the side of the Society 
against the Incumbent. A vestry meeting was next held, 
at which it was decided to apply to the Ecclesiastical Court 
for a Faculty confirming the restorations which had been 
made by the Society. To this Mr. Faulkener replied that 
he yielded to none of his parishioners in gratitude to the 
Society for what it had done in restoring his Church, the 
Stone Altar and Credence Table alone excepted. 

"Let these things," said the Incumbent, "be taken away at once. 
Harmony, peace, love, and goodwill will quickly follow. And why 
not ? What objection can be raised to a plain wooden table, like 
that which our fathers and we have been so long accustomed 
to use? Christianity by its very nature requires, and in express 
words prescribes a Communion Table. And I ask no more. Surely, 
as Incumbent of the Church, I ought not to have a Stone Altar 
forced into it against my conscience. God forbid ! The Camden 
Society may offer me one of their Stone Altars, but they shall not, 
while I have a voice to speak, silence me in protesting loudly 
against this abomination." 1 

1 English Churchman, March 7, 1844, p. 144. 


In the Consistory Court of Ely, on July 25, 1844, the 
Churchwardens applied for a faculty confirming the erection 
of the Stone Altar and Credence Table. The Court gave 
judgment in favour of the application. Thereupon there 
was great rejoicing in the Puseyite camp, whose members 
knew very well the importance to them of the decision, 
however much they might, in public, term the dispute an 
unimportant and trifling one. But their rejoicings were 
shortlived. The Incumbent gave notice of an appeal to the 
Court of Arches. This was met by the Puseyites with a 
howl of indignation and gross personal insult. The organ 
of the Puseyite party had the indecency to comment on the 
appeal in the following terms : 

" We might apply to Mr. Faulkener the old alliterative descrip 
tion of a bad wife : 

Weak and wanton, 
Wicked and wilful, 
Wrangling and wasteful. 

But then he is wasteful of other people s property ; he begs money 
that he may spend it upon his own fancies and follies, knowing, as 
he does, that every farthing which he compels his opponents to 
spend upon him, would, but for him, have been spent to the honour 
and glory of Almighty God. Thus he robs God as well as man." l 

But for all this insult, abuse, and bluster, the case came 
at length into the Court of Arches, and on January 31, 1845, 
judgment was given by Sir Herbert Jenner Fust, reversing 
the decision of the Ely Consistorial Court, and declaring 
Stone Altars and Credence Tables illegal in the Church of 
England. In delivering judgment he said : 

" I was asked, why should a Stone Font be directed to be used, 
and a Stone Communion Table be proscribed ? To this I answer, 
the law has sanctioned the one and excluded the other, and for this 
very obvious reason ; to Stone Altars or tables superstitious notions 
were attached, which did not belong to Stone Fonts." 2 

" After maturely weighing the subject, the conscientious opinion 
in my mind is, that a structure like the present [i.e. the Stone 
Altar] is not a Communion Table within the meaning of the 

1 English Churchman, November 28, 1844, p. 758. 
3 Robertson s Ecclesiastical Reports^ vol. i. p. 255. 


Rubric ; and that the Credence Table, being an adjunct not recog 
nised by our Church, cannot be pronounced for. In coming to this 
conclusion, I do not go so far as to admonish the Churchwardens to 
remove them. All I can do is, to refuse to confirm the sentence of 
the Court below. A question here arises, whether I can so alter the 
Faculty prayed, as to omit the Stone Altar and Credence Table, and 
grant it in other respects, confirming all other things not comprised 
within the former Faculty. I see no objection to that, and such must 
be the decree of the Court." l 

Twelve years later the Judicial Committee of Privy 
Council in the case of Liddell v. Westerton, on March 21, 
1857, confirmed the decision of the Court of Arches in the 
above case (known as Faulkener v. Litchfield) as to Stone 
Altars, declaring them illegal in the Church of England, 
but reversing the judgment as to Credence Tables. On 
this latter point the Judicial Committee of Privy Council 
said : 

"The next question is, as to the Credence Tables. Here the 
Rubrics of the Prayer Book become important. Their Lordships 
entirely agree with the opinions expressed by the learned Judges in 
these cases, and in Faulkener v. Litchfield, that in the performance 
of the services, Rites, and Ceremonies ordered by the Prayer Book, 
the directions contained in it must be strictly observed ; that no 
omission and no addition can be permitted ; but they are not pre 
pared to hold that the use of all articles not expressly mentioned in 
the Rubric, although quite consistent with> and even subsidiary to 
the service, is forbidden. Organs are not mentioned, yet because 
they are auxiliary to the singing, they are allowed. Pews, cushions 
to kneel upon, pulpit cloths, hassocks, seats by the Communion 
Table, are in constant use, yet they are not mentioned in the 

" Now what is a Credence Table ? It is simply a small side- 
table, on which the bread and wine are placed before the consecra 
tion, having no connection with any superstitious usage of the 
Church of Rome. Their removal has been ordered on the ground 
that they are adjuncts to an Altar ; their Lordships cannot but think 
that they are more properly to be regarded as adjuncts to a Com 
munion Table." 2 

The Cambridge Camden Society, which had restored the 

1 Robertson s Ecclesiastical Reports, vol. i. pp. 259, 260. 

2 Brodrick and Freemantle s Judgments of the Judicial Committee of the 
Privy Council, p. 153- 


Round Church at Cambridge, was founded in 1839, for the 
purpose of promoting the restoration of Churches on the 
lines of pre-Reformation times. Perhaps its real object 
was never more accurately described than by the Rev. 
Francis Close, Rector of Cheltenham, and afterwards Dean 
of Carlisle, in a sermon which he preached on November 
5, 1844 :- 

"During the year now drawing to a close," he said, "my atten 
tion has been more particularly directed to the same class of 
[Tractarian] errors and false doctrine promulgated in a still more 
plausible and attractive form, namely, under the plea of reviving 
Church Architecture. It will be my object then, on the present 
occasion, to show that as Romanism is taught Analytically at Oxford, 
it is taught Artistically at Cambridge that it is inculcated theo 
retically, in Tracts, at one University, and it is sculptured^ painted^ 
and graven at the other. The Cambridge Camdenians build 
Churches and furnish symbolic vessels, by which the Oxford Tract- 
arians may carry out their principles." J 

Dr. Close proved his indictment of the Cambridge Cam- 
den Society (which, however, must not be identified with 
the Camden Society recently united to the Royal Historical 
Society) by abundant extracts from its publications, show 
ing clearly that the design was to restore Churches so as to 
make them suited for Popish services and Popish cere 
monial. His sermon was subsequently published with the 
title of The Restoration of Churches is the Restoration of 
Popery. His opponents ridiculed the title, and represented 
the preacher as opposed to all Church Restoration. When 
reprinting his sermon, in 1863, Dr. Close repudiated such 
an idea. "No person," he said, " could honestly raise 
such a charge against him he will not say who had read 
the pamphlet but who had even read the rest of the title- 
page, which marks as clearly as can be that his assertion 
was limited to a special sort of Church Restoration. " 2 
And even in the sermon itself the preacher had explained 
himself clearly enough. " I affirm," he said, " that I am 
not opposed to the decoration of Churches, but to extrava 
gant and gorgeous decoration ; that I am not an enemy to 

1 The Footsteps of Error. By Francis Close, D.D., Dean of Carlisle, p. 75. 
London : Hatchard & Co. 1863. 

2 Ibid. p. 73. 


anything that is beautiful in architecture, while I am, and 
hope ever to be, the implacable enemy of all Popish and medi 
aeval restorations. The best evidence I can allege in support 
of such assertions are the public buildings in my own 
[Cheltenham] parish, whose erection I have been permitted 
either to originate or extensively to promote ; they are 
silent but not inefficacious witnesses that neither with 
respect to Churches or to Colleges do I desire to see them 
as brick barns. " 1 

This faithful warning of Dr. Close, in 1844, against the 
Restoration of Churches on Romish lines, is more needed 
now than when first uttered, and, perhaps, by no class of 
men more than by Evangelical Incumbents and Church 
wardens. Ritualistic Incumbents know what such Restora 
tions mean, while Protestant Churchmen are, to an alarming 
extent, blind to the evil. All over the land we find new 
Churches built, and old ones restored, in a style which can 
only delight the hearts of the Romanisers, although those 
Churches are frequently in Evangelical and Protestant 
hands. Why should Protestant clergymen permit their 
Churches to be so arranged as to make them ready for a 
Roman Catholic priest to say Mass in ? It would be the 
wisdom of Protestants never to build a new Church with 
a Chancel. 2 And what do they want with Communion 
Tables erected on high, like Roman Catholic Altars ? And 
why do they permit Chancel gates and screens to be 
erected, to separate the supposed Holy of Holies within 
from where the common laity sit without? Why allow 
Churches to be so arranged as to convey to the people the 
idea that the Chancel is holier than any other place ? For 
my part, I believe that there is no portion of a Parish 
Church which is holier than another part. I am certain 
that where the poor man kneels, in his humility, at the 
west end of the Church (if he be a true Christian) is in 
God s sight quite as holy as where the clergy stand in their 
glory in the Chancel. We sadly need a wholesale Reform 
in Church Building and Church Restoration. 

1 Close s Footsteps of Error, p. 83. 

2 The majority of Wren s Churches in the City of London were built without 


Pusey thinks that God is lt drawing " Newman to Rome Pusey refuses 
to write against the Church of Rome Newman secedes to Rome- 
Father Dominic s narrative of Newman s reception Pusey on the 
secession Newman goes to see the Pope When and where was 
Newman ordained a Roman Catholic? Some noteworthy circum 
stances St. Saviour s, Leeds Founded by Dr. Pusey He insists 
on an Altar The distinction between an Altar and a Table Dr. 
Hook s anxiety Dr. Wilberforce appointed Bishop of Oxford 
Pusey tries to secure his goodwill for Pusey ism He fails Pusey s 
desire for Union with Rome His subtle tactics with his penitents 
Hook believes Pusey is under the influence of the Jesuits The Exeter 
Surplice Riots Debate in the House of Lords More Puseyite 
exhortations to prosecute Evangelical clergy An extraordinary case 
in Salisbury Diocese Extempore prayers in a Schoolroom "a gross 
scandal" The case of the Rev. James Shore Pusey s Sermon on 
The Entire Absolution of the Penitent Extracts from the Sermon 
Pusey goes to Confession for the first time The effect of Pusey s 
Confessional work on his penitents Testimony of Dean Boyle 
Clerical Retreats. 

THE year 1845 will ever be memorable in the annals of the 
Romeward Movement, as the year in which the Rev. ]. H. 
Newman seceded to Rome. The event had long been 
expected, yet when it came it caused almost as great a 
sensation as if it had been quite unexpected. In the month 
of July Pusey seems to have made up his mind that Newman 
would go over to Rome, but he actually said that he thought 
that perhaps God was " drawing him " thither ! " I have," 
he wrote to Keble, on July 8th, " looked upon this [expected 
secession] of dear Newman as a mysterious dispensation, 
as though (if it be indeed so) Almighty God was drawing 
him, as a chosen instrument, for some office in the Roman 
Church (although he himself goes, of course, not as a Re 
former, but as a simple act of faith), and so I thought that 
He might be pleased to give him convictions (if it be so) 

which He does not give to others. At least I have come 



into this way of thinking." 1 In the prospect of Newman s 
Secession Pusey s friends urged him to take up his pen and 
write against the Church of Rome ; but he refused to 
do so. "I cannot any more," he said, "take the negative 
ground against Rome ; I can only remain neutral. I have 
indeed for some time left off alleging grounds against 
Rome." 2 In the same month of July Pusey wrote to 
Newman himself with reference to his expected secession : 
" I suppose, of course, that, if it is so, Almighty God is 
pleased to draw you for some office which He has for you." 3 
On October 9, 1845, Newman was received into the 
Church of Rome, in his Littlemore Monastery, by Father 
Dominic, a Passionist. Three weeks later this gentleman 
sent to the Tablet an account of Newman s reception. He 
had, he said, previously, on Michaelmas Day, received the 
Rev. ]. D. Dalgairns into the Church of Rome, at Aston 

" I was," wrote Father Dominic, "on the point of setting out for 
Belgium, when I received a note from him [Dalgairns], inviting me 
to pass through Oxford on my way ; for, he said, I might perhaps 
find something to do there. I accordingly set out from here on the 
8th of October, and reached Oxford about ten o clock the evening 
of the same day. I there found Mr. Dalgairns and Mr. St. John, 
who had made his profession of Faith at Prior Park on the 2nd of 
October, awaiting my arrival. They told me that I was to receive 
Mr. Newman into the Church. This news filled me with joy, and 
made me soon forget the rain that had been pelting upon me for the 
last five hours. 

"From Oxford we drove in a chaise to Littlemore, where we 
arrived about eleven o clock. I immediately sat down near a fire to 
dry my clothes, when Mr. Newman entered the room, and, throwing 
himself at my feet, asked my blessing, and begged me to hear his 
confession, and receive him into the Church. He made his confes 
sion that same night, and on the following morning the Reverend 
Messrs. Bowles and Staunton did the same : in the evening of the 
same day these three made their profession of Faith in the usual 
form in their private Oratory, one after another, with such fervour 
and piety that I was almost out of myself for joy. I afterwards gave 
them all canonical absolution, and administered to them the Sacra- 

1 Life of Dr. Pusey ; vol. ii. p. 453. 

z Ibi .L p. 456. 3 Ibidm p . 4S g t 


ment of Baptism sub conditiom. On the following morning I said 
Mass in their Oratory, and gave Communion to Messrs. Newman, 
St. John, Bowles, Staunton, and Dalgairns." l 

A correspondent of the English Churchman declared, 
commenting on Newman s secession : " It has happened 
that in heart and intention, Mr. Newman, while nominally 
with us, has during the last four years been a member of 
the Roman Communion." Pusey wrote a letter, which 
appeared in the same issue of the English Churchman, on 
Newman s secession, in which he stated that, having heard 
that the Romanists on the Continent had long been praying 
to God for Newman s conversion to Rome, he had then 
begun to fear that " God will give them whom they pray 
for ; " and that, as to Newman himself : " He seems then, 
to me, not so much gone from us, as transplanted into 
another part of the Vineyard, where the full energies of 
his powerful mind can be employed, which here they 
were not." 

Puseyites and Ritualists have never ceased to mourn for 
the loss of Newman, as though it were some great evil in 
flicted on the English Church. It was, in reality, nothing 
of the kind, but a great blessing. A year before it took 
place, Archdeacon Samuel Wilberforce declared : " If 
Newman is to go, the sooner he goes the better, because in 
going he will lose his power of leading others over with 
him." 3 The sooner an enemy is removed from the camp, 
the better it will be for the camp itself, though the enemy 
personally may be the loser by the change. There are men 
in the present day who think that if all the Ritualistic clerical 
rebels against the law of the Church were ejected, the 
Church of England would suffer loss. Never was there a 
greater delusion. As well might we argue that a house 
would become more healthy by retaining in it all who are 
suffering from fever, and that the epidemic would increase 
in the house if those who are stricken with it should leave it. 

Newman s perversion led to a very large secession to 
Rome of his followers. He continued to live at Littlemore 

1 English Churchman, November 27, 1845, p. 761. 

2 Ibid. October 16, 1845, p. 662. 

3 Life of Bishop Wilberforce^ vol. i. p. 258. 


for several months after his reception. On November ist 
he was confirmed by Bishop Wiseman. On February 23, 
1846, he removed to Oscott College. While he was there, 
Wiseman wrote to Dr. Russell of Maynooth : "While I am 
writing this, Mr. Newman is under examination for Minor 
Orders." 1 The Univers, of September 20, 1846, published 
a letter from Langres, stating that Newman was in that city 
on his way to Rome. " Mr. Newman/ says the writer, 
"was accompanied by the Rev. Ambrose St. John, who also 
has been admitted to Minor Orders, and repairs to Rome to 
receive the priesthood." 2 On October 28th Newman arrived 
in the City of Rome. The Rome correspondent of the Daily 
News, " Father Prout," in announcing his arrival, added : 
" In a few days Mr. Newman, late of Oxford, and his com 
panions, will take possession of chambers in the College of 
Propaganda, and enter on a preparatory course previous to 
re-ordination in the Church of Rome." 

The question here arises, on what date, and in what build 
ing, was Newman ordained a priest of the Church of Rome ? 
The answer to this question must be at least until more 
light is thrown on that mysterious event no one knows, 
except the authorities of the Church of Rome, and they have 
never given the public any information on the subject ! We 
have seen, on Roman Catholic authority, that he went to 
Rome expressly for the purpose of being there ordained a 
priest. There was no necessity for him to go there ; he 
could have been ordained a priest in England by Bishop 
Wiseman, and have thus saved himself the trouble of the 
journey. When he died, as Cardinal Newman, in 1890, 
numerous biographies were published by the Roman Catho 
lic papers, but I have not seen in either of them any informa 
tion on the point in question. Why this strange and 
mysterious silence ? The event was an important one, such 
as one would naturally expect to find recorded in any 
account of Newman s life. But not a line on the subject 
has, so far as I am aware, been yet written by any Roman 
Catholic to throw any light on this subject. In 1897, The 

1 Life and Times of Cardinal Wiseman, vol. i. p. 450. 

2 Cardinal Newman : A Monograph. By John Oldcastle, p. 34. London : 
Burns & Gates. 


Life and Times of Cardinal Wiseman was published in two 
volumes, written by Mr. Wilfrid Ward. The first of these 
volumes contains several lengthy letters, written from Rome 
by Newman and his friend Mr. Ambrose St. John, during 
their residence there (which lasted until towards the end of 
the year 1847), and addressed to Bishop Wiseman. In these 
letters they give very full and detailed accounts of their 
daily life, of their interviews with the Pope and other pro 
minent personages, with ample particulars of all their plans 
for future work when they returned to England ; but not 
one word about an event which would have been the most impor 
tant in Newman s life his ordination as a priest in the Church 
of Rome ! Soon after Newman s death, a brief biography 
was published by a Roman Catholic, "John Oldcastle," 
under the title of Cardinal Newman : A Monograph. In it 
we read : " Newman received Holy Orders at the hands of 
Cardinal Franzoni, and, in 1847, he announced, in a letter 
from Rome to Mr. Hope-Scott, the important plans already 
made." x Then follows an extract from the letter alluded to. 
It was evidently the intention of " John Oldcastle " to con 
vey the impression to his readers that this letter to Mr. 
Hope-Scott was written after Newman s ordination as a 
priest by Cardinal Franzoni. On turning to the Memoirs 
of James Hope-Scott, where the letter is printed in full, we 
find that it was dated " Feb. 23, 47 ; " 2 but in the English 
Churchman for April i, 1847, page 234, I find an extract 
published from the Roman Catholic Tablet, of apparently the 
previous week, and therefore a full month after Newman s 
letter to Mr. Hope-Scott. And this is what the Tablet 
said : 

" We hear with great pleasure that Mr. Newman is to return to 
England as a Brother of the Oratory. . . . The story that there has 
been any difficulty about Mr. Newman s ordination is of course a 
mere fable. His ordination, and that of his companions, may pro 
bably be delayed a little by the noviciate requisite for members of 
the Oratory, but it will follow, under the direction of the proper 
authorities, as a matter of course." 

It is therefore certain that up to about the middle of 

1 Cardinal Newman : A Monograph. By John Oldcastle, p. 35. 

2 Memoirs of James Hope-Scott, vol. ii. p. 73. 


March 1847 five months after his arrival in Rome 
Newman had not, so far as the public were aware, been 
ordained a priest. In the year 1866 Newman s Apologia 
Pro Vita Sua was replied to by Mr. Charles Hastings Col- 
lette, in a volume of 200 p^iges, entitled Dr. Newman and 
His Religious Opinions. In it the author made some start 
ling statements about Newman s ordination, which, so far 
as I can ascertain, have never been answered. Certainly 
they were not replied to by Newman himself, though it 
would undoubtedly have been worth his while to have 
done so. It is simply in the hope of forcing, if that be 
possible, the hands of the Papal authorities into producing 
the official record of Newman s ordination, together with 
the date and place where it occurred, that I here repro 
duce Mr. Collette s statement. Speaking of Newman and 
Froude s secret interview with Wiseman in Rome, in 1833, 
to which I have already referred, Mr. Collette writes : 

" Now it is a fact that it was considered at the time, and has 
been often publicly repeated, that Dr. Newman was at this inter 
view with Dr. Wiseman, in company with Froude, formally ordained 
a priest of the Roman Church, being then, in fact, a member of that 
communion. Dr. Newman again visited Rome under the advice of 
Dr. Wiseman in 1845 ; x after he had publicly renounced the com 
munion of the Church of England. He went ostensibly to be 
inducted into the priesthood, a ceremony that could have been 
equally well performed in England. It has been confidently asserted 
that Dr. Newman was not then (i 845)2 ordained a priest of Rome; 
that his journey was a make-believe. Holy Orders in the Roman 
Church are accounted a Sacrament, which cannot be repeated 
without sacrilege. Anglican Orders are void, in the estimation of 
the Roman Church. If Dr. Newman was secretly ordained in 1833, 
the ceremony could not be repeated in i845, 3 and it was publicly 
alleged at the time that he was not ordained in 1845 [1846], nor 
ever since. . . . When Dr. Newman publicly declared himself a 
Romanist, and went to Rome ostensibly for his ordination, a day 
was proposed for the performance of that ceremony. Great curiosity 
was excited at the time among the English at Rome, to witness 
the ceremony. Those who were there at the time well remember 
the circumstance. But for one reason or another it was deferred, 
until general interest died away, and no ordination, so far as the 

1 A misprint for 1846. 2 1846. 3 1846. 


public cire aware, took place. One only conclusion was come to ; 
namely, that Dr. Newman had been already ordained a priest of 
Rome, and was actually a priest while officiating in the Anglican 
Church. This challenge was, at the time, publicly made, and has 
never been denied. . . . 

" Dr. Newman is now openly an officiating priest in the Roman 
Church. It was therefore with more than ordinary curiosity that 
we anxiously awaited the announcement by Dr. Newman, in his 
biography [the Apologia Pro Vita Sua\ as to the exact time when, 
in fact, he had formally taken the vows of the Roman Church as a 
priest. One would have supposed that the precise date when this 
important occurrence took place, and the circumstances attending 
it, and by whom the ceremony was performed, would be duly 
notified. But we look in vain for this information ; all we are 
told is, that in 1845 he was received into the Church of Rome; 
and he says for a while after my reception I proposed to betake 
myself to some secular calling ; but he nowhere mentions his re- 
ordination." 1 

Now I know very well that it is quite easy to pooh- 
pooh Mr. Collette s assertions, and to say that they are not 
worth a moment s thought. But this is not to answer the 
question, When and where was Dr. Newman ordained a 
priest of the Church of Rome ? 

The consecration of the new Church of St. Saviour s, 
Leeds, on October 28, 1845, was an event of more than 
ordinary interest to the Puseyites. The Church was built 
for the purpose of carrying the principles of the Oxford 
Movement into practical operation in a poor parish. Its 
real founder was Dr. Pusey himself, and up to a certain 
point he had worked most cordially with Dr. Hook, Vicar 
of Leeds, in making all necessary arrangements for the 
new Church. As far back as 1839 Pusey had corresponded 
with Hook about it, mentioning that a friend (who we now 
know was Pusey himself) was willing to give ^1500 to build 
at Leeds an " Oratorium," but that he must make it a con 
dition that when erected it should have an inscription with 
the words : " Ye who enter this holy place, pray for the 
sinner who built it." The Bishop of Ripon was con 
sulted about tbe proposed inscription, and he said that on 

1 Dr. Newman and His Religious Opinions. By Charles Hastings Collette, 
pp. 47-49. London : J. F. Shaw & Co. 1866. 


receiving an assurance that the person referred to was then 
alive, he would not object to it. Of course, I need hardly 
point out that as soon as the donor was dead the inscrip 
tion would then become an invitation to pray for the dead. 
No doubt this is what Pusey had in his mind when he first 
proposed its erection. Eventually the foundation-stone 
was laid on September 14, 1842 ; but no great publicity 
was given to the event, through fear of arousing the oppo 
sition of the Protestant Churchmen of Leeds. As the 
building of the Church progressed, it gave rise to a consider 
able amount of local discussion, so that in November, 1843, 
Hook told Pusey: "I really dread the consecration." 1 
Some members of the Cambridge Camden Society wished 
that the Ten Commandments, Creed, and Lord s Prayer 
should not be set up near the Communion Table ; but 
Pusey, to his credit be it said, refused. He thought there 
was " much good " in having them in such a position. " I 
cannot but think," he said, "that the Ten Commandments, 
with their strict warning voice, are far more valuable to us, 
as attendants on the altar, than images or pictures or 
tapestry would be ; " 2 but he was unwilling, he added, to 
give up the proposed Altar Cross. As to the material of 
which the " altar " was to be made, Pusey was very emphatic. 
He would rather have the consecration of the Church 
suspended than erect in it a Communion Table. He 
would have an " altar." " I could not myself," he wrote 
to a correspondent, "put up what should seem to be a 
mere table. When truth was not denied, tables were 
altars, as well as altars holy tables ; now they seem to me 
to involve at least a withdrawal of the truth ; and if insisted 
upon, a denial of it. I dare not myself be any party to put 
ting up a table. I would sooner have the consecration of 
a Church suspended. I would spare any needless offence ; 
but, if this be one, it seems to me unavoidable. But I hope 
with a few years it will much diminish, and every altar is 
a gain." 3 No doubt every "altar" erected in a parish 
Church is a gain to the Romeward Movement ; but at the 
same time it is a loss to Scriptural truth. The New Testa- 

1 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. ii. p. 475. 

2 Ibid. p. 477. 3 Ibid. p. 478. 


merit knows nothing of an " altar " on which to celebrate 
the Lord s Supper ; and the Church of England orders 
only a table ; but that which she has ordered was not 
sufficient for Dr. Pusey. On this point the judgment of the 
Judicial Committee of Privy Council in the case of Liddell 
v. Westerton may be usefully cited. Their lordships said : 

" The distinction between an Altar and a Communion Table 
is in itself essential and deeply founded in the most important 
difference in matters of faith between Protestants and Romanists, 
namely, in the different notions of the nature of the Lord s Supper 
which prevailed in the Roman Catholic Church at the time of the 
Reformation, and those which were introduced by the Reformers. 
By the former it was considered as a Sacrifice of the Body and 
Blood of the Saviour. The Altar was the place on which the 
Sacrifice was to be made ; the elements were to be consecrated, 
and, being so consecrated, were treated as the actual Body and 
Blood of the Victim. The Reformers, on the other hand, con 
sidered the Holy Communion not as a Sacrifice, but as a Feast, 
to be celebrated at the Lord s Table." 1 

Pusey wished the new Church to be known as " Holy 
Cross Church/ but the Bishop of Ripon objected to this, 
and therefore " St. Saviour s Church " was selected instead. 
The Bishop refused to consecrate the Church unless a 
wooden Communion Table were erected, and not either a 
stone altar or a stone slab resting on a wooden frame. 
The Rev. Richard Ward was appointed the first Incum 
bent. He afterwards seceded to Rome. When the selec 
tion of special preachers at the Consecration services had 
to be made, Hook became very anxious. Newman had 
only just seceded to Rome, and the Vicar of Leeds was 
naturally fearful lest special preachers should be selected, 
who might soon after go over to Rome. " If," Hook wrote 
to Pusey, " any of the preachers fall away into the fearful 
schism of Rome, against which I am accustomed to preach 
so very strongly (I am this very day about to denounce the 
heresy of Rome in praying to Saints), more mischief will be 
done than I can calculate." 2 At last the consecration took 

1 Brodrick and Freemantle s Judgments of the Judicial Committee of Privy 
Council, p. 144. 

2 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. ii. p. 487. 


place, and soon St. Saviour s, Leeds, became notorious 
throughout the country as a hotbed of Popery, and a 
nursery of clerical and lay perverts to Rome. 

Another event of considerable importance occurred this 
year, in the appointment of Dean Samuel Wilberforce as 
Bishop of Oxford, in the room of Dr. Bagot, who had been 
transferred to Bath and Wells. Churchmen everywhere 
wondered what would come from such an appointment. 
Evangelical Churchmen had reason to expect fair play at 
his hands, though he had refused to be recognised as a 
member of their party. The Puseyites hoped for the best, 
yet with fear and trembling. As soon as Dr. Wilberforce s 
nomination was made public, Dr. Pusey wrote to him, 
evidently anxious to secure his goodwill for himself and his 
friends. Wilberforce was elected as Bishop by the Dean 
and Chapter of Christ Church, on November i5th, and on 
the same day Pusey opened a correspondence with the 
Bishop-Elect, in which he explained his own position and 
work to his future Diocesan. " For myself/ Pusey said, 
" I can too readily think that any apparent connection 
with myself would rather embarrass you with many ; else it 
would have given me much pleasure if, in the retired way 
in which I live, my house could be of any service to you 
at any time that your duties shall call you into Oxford." l 
But Wilberforce was not to be caught in this way. He 
replied, thanking Pusey for the kind tone of his letter 
towards himself ; but ending with what must have been a 
bitter pill for Pusey to swallow. " I could not then," wrote 
Wilberforce, " but say, how very deeply (to go no further 
back) the letters to which you allude had pained me ; and 
that I cannot feel that the language therein held as to the 
errors of the Church of Rome is, to my apprehension, to 
be reconciled with the doctrinal formularies of our own 
Reformed Church." 2 "It was," says Canon Liddon, "a 
disagreeable surprise to one in Pusey s anxious position, 
entertaining, as he had done, such hopeful expectations, to 
receive thus early a plain intimation that the attitude of his 
future Bishop was so different from all that he had antici 
pated, as well as from that of the previous occupant of the 

1 Life of Bishop Wilberforce, vol. i. p. 302. Ibid. p. 302. 


See." l I have already quoted a portion of this correspond 
ence. Pusey s answer to this letter of the Bishop-Elect 
shows clearly how very far he had gone in helping on the 
Romeward Movement : 

"I did not," he said, "mean to say anything definitely as to 
myself, but only to maintain, in the abstract, the tenability of a certain 
position, in which very many are, of not holding themselves obliged to 
renounce any doctrine, formally decreed by the Roman Church. And 
this I knew would satisfy many minds, who do not wish to form 
any definite opinion on those doctrines, yet still wish not to be 
obliged to commit themselves against them. But in this I was not 
speaking of what is commonly meant by Popery, which is a large 
practical system, going beyond their formularies, varying perhaps 
indefinitely in different minds. I meant simply the letter of what 
has been decreed by the Roman Church ; and this I have, for 
years, hoped might ultimately become the basis of union between us." 2 

Here Pusey s anxious desire for the Union of the 
Church of England with the corrupt Church of Rome 
comes out most clearly, as does also his remarkable ac 
knowledgment that he had " for years " previously hoped 
for such an unholy union. " I cannot but think," he said, 
in this same letter, " that Rome and we are not irre 
concilably at variance, but that, in the great impending 
contest with unbelief, we shall be on the same side, and in 
God s time, and in His way, one." I am not exaggerating 
when I assert that from this period Reunion with Rome 
became the absorbing passion of Pusey s life. Certainly 
the "very many," who, in 1845, considered that, although 
in the Church of England, they were not " obliged to re 
nounce any doctrine formally decreed by the Roman 
Church," would not have felt much pressure on their 
conscience in accepting Union with Rome on Rome s 
terms. And even as to Pusey himself there were but 
few, if any, of the "formal" doctrines of Rome which 
he would, previous to the Vatican Council, insist on that 
Church renouncing as a condition of Reunion with the 
Church of England. He wrote, it is true, strongly against 
Mariolatry in the Church of Rome, as a part of her 
" large practical system, going beyond their formularies " 

1 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. iii. p. 42. 

2 Life of Bishop Wilberforce, vol. i. pp. 303, 304. 


(and subsequently he wrote against Papal Infallibility) ; but 
in this letter of his to Dr. Wilberforce, he showed his faith, 
even at that early period, in Purgatory and some Invoca 
tion of Saints. In what he said on these doctrines his 
double dealing and Jesuitism are also clearly revealed : 

" Practically," Pusey wrote to Wilberforce, " when people come 
to me for guidance, / endeavour to withhold them from what lies 
beyond our Church, although, if asked on the other side, I could not 
deny that such and such things seem to me admissible. 

" If I may explain my meaning, the remarkable Acts of S. 
Perpetua and Felicitas, which was beyond question genuine, con 
tain a very solemn vision, 1 which involves the doctrine of a process 
of purification after death by suffering, to shorten which prayer was 
available. ... I had interpreted passages (as of S. Basil), as I saw, 
wrongly, under a bias the other way ; solemn as it was, I could not, 
taking all together, refuse my belief to an intermediate state of cleans 
ing^ in some cases through pain. . . . The effect has been that I have 
since been ivholly silent about Purgatory (before I used to speak against 
it). I have not said so much as this except to two or three friends. 
Some of my nearest friends do not know if. 2 

" In like manner, I found that some Invocation of Saints was 
much more frequent in the early Church than I had been taught to 
think, that it has very high authority, and is nowhere blamed. This 
is wholly distinct from the whole system as to S. Mary, as what I said 
before is from the popular system as to Purgatory. In this way, then, 
and partly from the internal structure of the Article, I came to think 
that our Article did not condemn all doctrine of Purgatory 7 or 
Invocation of Saints, but only a certain practical system which the 
Reformers had before their eyes ; and then I came afterwards to see 
that the actual Roman formularies did not assert more on these subjects 
(as apart from the popular system or Popery ) than was in the 
ancient Church. 

"Practically, then, I dissuade or forbid (when I have authority) 
Invocation of Saints ; abstractedly I see no reason why our Church 
might not eventually alloiv it, in the sense of asking for their 
prayers." 3 

Double dealing of this kind, on Pusey s part, in relation 
to St. Saviour s, Leeds, led even that pronounced Tractarian, 

1 Fancy a man like Pusey basing his faith in the existence of a Purgatory on 
"a very solemn vision 1 " There was no basis for it in the Bible. 

2 In this Pusey acted on the doctrine of "Reserve in Communicating Religious 

3 Life of Bishop Wilberforce, vol. i. pp. 304, 305. 


Dr. Hook, to write to him, on December 19, 1846 : " Is 
this conduct that can be justified by any but a Jesuit ? Do 
not mistake me I do not think you are a Jesuit ; but I be 
lieve you to be under the influence of Jesuits. Your own 
representatives here say as much ; they seem to admit that 
you were only the puppet while others pulled the strings." 1 

Of Pusey s correspondence with Wilberforce Canon 
Liddon writes : " Anything more unhappy than such a 
correspondence as this cannot well be imagined " ; and he 
acknowledges that " there was sufficient in Pusey s letter to 
excite suspicion in the mind of one who had no closer 
sympathies with the Tractarian Movement than had Dr. 
Wilberforce at that moment." 2 

The question of the Surplice or Black Gown in the pulpit 
came again prominently before the public in 1845. The 
Bishop of Exeter having withdrawn his order to all his clergy 
to preach in the surplice only, it was felt by those who used 
the surplice that this order was not one commanding them 
to give it up. Amongst those who continued it were the 
Rev. Francis Courtenay, Vicar of St. Sidwell s, Exeter ; and 
the Rev. Philip Carlyon, Vicar of St. James , in the same 
city. On January loth both parishes held a united meeting 
" to consider the course to be adopted respecting the con 
tinued use of the surplice" by the Incumbents of both 
parishes. Several resolutions were passed (in one of which 
it was acknowledged that " the use of the surplice in the 
pulpit was introduced before the present Ministers were ap 
pointed ") and the Ministers were requested to discontinue 
the use of the surplice. In reply the Vicar of St. Sidwell s 
positively refused to grant the request ; while the Vicar 
of St. James promised to do what the meeting asked for. 
One result of the refusal by the Vicar of St. Sidwell s 
was a decision to build a u Free Church " in the district ; 
and the next was that on the following Sunday after his 
refusal Mr. Courtenay saw, on entering the pulpit in his 
surplice, two-thirds of the congregation arise and leave 
the Church in a body. When he left the Church he 
was hissed and hooted in the streets on his way to his 

1 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. iii. p. 126. 

2 Ibid. pp. 48, 49. 


residence. The Archbishop of Canterbury tried to allay the 
public excitement on this and a few other minor matters, 
which had spread throughout the country, by means of 
a Pastoral Letter. But inasmuch as his advice was that 
each side should, for the time being, tolerate the other side, 
no peaceful results followed from his exhortation. The 
Vicar of St. Sidwell s, Exeter, continued to preach in the 
surplice, and this led on several Sundays to riotous pro 
ceedings in the Church. The principal inhabitants of the 
city became alarmed, with the result that a requisition was 
addressed by the Mayor of Exeter and the Magistrates 
to the Bishop of Exeter, to use his influence with Mr. 
Courtenay in the interests of peace. The Bishop thereupon 
wrote to Mr. Courtenay : " I advise you to give way, at 
the request of the civil authorities of Exeter, and not to 
persist in wearing the surplice in the pulpit, unless con 
scientiously, and on full inquiry, you have satisfied yourself 
that your engagements to the Church require you to wear 
the surplice when you preach." l On this Mr. Courtenay 
very properly gave way, and promised to preach no longer 
in the surplice. But this concession did not satisfy his 
parishioners, who, on the day after it was made, held a 
meeting at which a resolution was unanimously passed, 
asking Mr. Courtenay to resign the living, and declaring 
that he " having signified his consent to withdraw the sur 
plice," " any concession now is insufficient to restore him 
to that position which a Pastor should hold among his 
parishioners." One result of the agitation at Exeter was a 
petition to the House of Lords from 3200 adult members 
of the Church of England residing at or near Exeter, com 
plaining of alterations which had been made by the clergy 
in the mode of conducting the services of the Church, 
which had " endangered the peace, union, and stability 
of the Established Church." It was presented by Earl 
Fortescue, Lord Lieutenant of Devon, on February 23rd, 
and led to an important debate, in the course of which the 
Bishop of Exeter defended his conduct as well as he could, 
and in which the Bishop of Norwich used these words : 

English Churchman^ January 30, 1845, P- 63. 


" My Lords, as this question refers to one particular 
diocese, ... I forbear from entering into the discussion ; 
but from the general feeling of the country, and particu 
larly from that in my own diocese, I can venture to say that 
there is a determination to adhere to our Protestant faith, 
and to resist any innovation, or any approach, in reality or 
even in imagination, to anything of a Roman Catholic 
feeling, and I rejoice that these petitions have been for 
warded." l 

All through this year the Puseyites continued to repeat 
their demand for the prosecution of Protestant clergymen 
who, in their opinion, had broken the law. I may here 
remark that there is no reason why Evangelical clergymen 
should be exempt from prosecution should they break the 
law of the Church ; but at this period it was quite expected 
that in this way they would be able to suppress those 
peculiar doctrines of the Evangelicals opposed to the 
Romeward Movement. In this the Puseyites and their 
successors, the Ritualists, have been greatly disappointed. 
A very few of the Evangelical clergy may, here and there, 
have offended against the law on some minor point of no 
importance ; but these are mere trifles when compared 
with the serious breaches of the law, in the interests of 
Sacerdotalism, now constantly perpetrated by the Ritual 
ists, and it is well, in this connection, to remember that 
Evangelicals should not be held responsible for what Broad 
Churchmen do. One grave cause of offence to their op 
ponents the Protestant clergy gave at this time, by mixing 
more freely amongst orthodox Nonconformists, and even 
giving addresses at public meetings in aid of religious work 
conducted by Churchmen and Dissenters combined. This 
exhibition of Protestant unity was peculiarly distasteful to 
men who were sighing for unity with Rome. The English 
Churchman, of March 13, 1845, expressed great satisfaction 
at hearing that the Bishop of London had prevented three 
London Incumbents from speaking at a meeting of the Welsh 
Calvinistic Methodist Foreign Missionary Society ; and then 
it continued its comment in the following style : " So far so 

1 English Churchman, March 6, 1845, P- : 45- 


good, as a beginning, and we trust it is only a beginning, 
on the part of the Lord Bishop of the Diocese. We trust 
that the meetings of the London City Mission, the Religious 
Tract Society, and other Dissenting schemes for promoting 
schism in the Church, will no longer be allowed to boast of 
the advocacy of the clergy." But there was no praise from 
the Puseyites for the same Bishop of London (Dr. Blom 
field) when, only two years before, he refused to allow a 
clergyman to officiate in a parish, on the ground that in 
a sermon he had insisted upon the necessity of Auricular 
Confession. After quoting passages from the sermon 
Bishop Blomfield wrote to the preacher : " I wish to 
give you an opportunity of retracting or explaining these 
erroneous positions ; but I really do not see how I can 
safely entrust the care of a large body of poor ignorant 
people to a teacher who either holds these opinions, or 
asserts them so broadly and offensively, without a clear 
understanding of what he says." l Would that our Bishops 
were now as faithful in this gravely important matter as 
Bishop Blomfield was in 1843. And why should they not 
be as faithful ? 

In its issue for September 4, 1845, the English Church 
man again expressed its delight on hearing that the Bishop 
of Salisbury had threatened to prosecute two of his Evan 
gelical clergy for what it termed the " gross scandal to the 
Church " which they had given by actually preaching in an 
unlicensed building ! It seems that during the previous 
month a Commission appointed by the Bishop of Salisbury, 
under the Church Discipline Act, met at Upway, for the 
purpose of making enquiry whether there were prima facie 
grounds for prosecuting the Rev. Samuel Starky, Rector of 
Charlinch, " in that he has lately, at divers times, committed 
the canonical offence of preaching and publicly praying, in 
unconsecrated places, without the license of the Ordinary 
thereof ; " and for prosecuting the Rev. Octavius Piers, 
Vicar of Preston, in Dorset, for " having been present at, 
and aided and abetted the meetings and assemblies lately, 
and at divers times, held in unconsecrated places within his 

1 Memoir of Bishop Blomfield^ vol. ii. p. 84. 


said parish of Preston, and at which meetings the Rev. 
Samuel Starky and other persons had, as alleged, in the 
presence of the said Octavius Piers, publicly preached, prayed, 
&c." * The Commission reported, after hearing evidence, 
that there was a prima facie case for proceeding against the 
two Evangelical Incumbents. 

It makes one justly indignant at the narrow-minded 
bigotry which would actually prosecute a man, with the 
hope of his being deprived of his living, or at least 
suspended for a time, for the sole offence of " publicly 
preaching and praying " in an unconsecrated building, and 
that within his own parish ! And be it noted that, although 
Mr. Starky preached in Mr. Piers parish, he did so with 
the latter gentleman s full knowledge and consent. This 
is a chapter in the History of the Romeward Movement of 
which the Ritualists ought to be heartily ashamed, though 
I sincerely believe that if they had the opportunity they 
would even now imitate the disgraceful conduct of the 
Puseyites of 1845. And this is what the Puseyite organ 
said about the case, when the good news came to its 
office : 

" The Commission issued by the Lord Bishop of Salisbury, to 
enquire whether there are grounds for proceeding against Mr. 
Starky, and the notorious Mr. Octavius Piers, for preaching in 
unconsecrated places, without the license of the Ordinary. The 
latter-named clergyman has, for a long time, caused, in various 
ways, gross scandal to the Church. 2 But the question at issue is of 
great importance, and an ecclesiastical decision upon it will have 
a most extensive influence, especially in this diocese, where the 
practice of extemporary prayer and preaching Cottage Lectures in 
schoolrooms, hard by the Church, is of common occurrence." 3 

Of course these two excellent Evangelical clergymen 
had committed no offence against the law whatever. Appa 
rently it was deemed unadvisable to bring the case into 
Court, for I can find no record of it going any further. 

A lawsuit which created a great deal of public interest 

1 English Churchman, August 28, 1845, p. 544. 

2 I suppose the "gross scandal" was caused by such conduct as preaching 
and praying in unconsecrated buildings. 

3 English Churchman, September 4, 1845, p. 564. 


came this year before Sir Herbert Jenner Fust, in the 
Court of Arches. The real prosecutor was the High 
Church Bishop of Exeter, who seems to have had a 
far greater dislike to decidedly Evangelical and Protestant 
truth, than to any imitations of Popery in his diocese. 
He prosecuted through his Secretary, Mr. Ralph Barnes. 
The defendant was the Rev. James Shore, who, until 
about a year before the commencement of the proceed 
ings, had acted for nearly eleven years as a Minister of 
Bridgetown Chapel, in the parish of Bury Pomeroy, with 
the licence of the Bishop who was now his prosecutor. 
From a correspondence on the case which Mr. Shore 
published in 1849, while he was in Exeter Gaol through 
the action of his theological opponents, and from The 
Case of Mr. Shore, written by the Bishop of Exeter, I find 
that in 1843 the late Incumbent resigned the living, and 
a Rev. W. B. Cosens was appointed in his room. The 
Bishop of Exeter sent for Mr. Cosens a few days after his 
institution, and to quote the Bishop s own words, given 
by him on oath at the Exeter Assizes, March 1848 said to 
him : " I apprehend you will find a very important part of 
your parish, or of those souls committed to your charge, to 
be in such a state that you ought to take especial care 
whom you appoint as your Assistant Curate at Bridge 
town " l of which down to that period Mr. Shore had been 
for nearly eleven years Curate. Mr. Shore still retained 
the licence given him by the Bishop when he first entered 
on the Curacy. There had been a change in the Incum 
bency meantime, before the arrival of Mr. Cosens, but the 
licence had not been formally renewed, and legally did not 
require renewal. The Bishop revoked Mr. Shore s licence, 
and then demanded that he should obtain a new nomina 
tion to the Curacy from Mr. Cosens, or cease to officiate in 
Bridgetown. Of course, after such a hint from his new 
Diocesan, Mr. Cosens refused to nominate Mr. Shore. The 
Bishop had for a long time disliked Mr. Shore s decided 
Protestantism, and was heartily glad to get rid of him/ 
" Doubtless," writes Mr. Shore, " my views of doctrine, 

1 The Case of the Rev. James Shore, M.A. By Himself. In Reply to the 
Bishop, p. 1 6. London : Partridge & Oakey. 1849. 



being so opposed to Tractarianism, might have excited a 
prejudice against me ; but there is something further and 
still deeper. It is evident, from the principal part of the 
Bishop s pamphlet now before me, that he was very anxious 
to get the Chapel endowed and consecrated, and thus more 
certainly under his own control." l Had the Bishop suc 
ceeded in his ambition, and secured Bridgetown Chapel by 
having it consecrated which it had not been he would 
very soon have sent Mr. Shore about his business, as 
a known opponent of the Tractarianism which he (the 
Bishop) loved so dearly. Mr. Shore tells us, and I see no 
reason to doubt the statement : "As showing the Bishop s 
determination to silence all who oppose the Tractarian 
Movement, I may here mention that he withdrew his licence 
from a friend of mine, on account of his having written a 
note condemning Puseyism. This clergyman waited three 
years in silence, in the hope of again being able to exercise 
his ministry in the Establishment, but finding every door 
shut against him, he built a chapel for himself, in which he 
is now preaching as a Dissenting Minister." 2 The fact 
is that the Bishop s nature was tyrannical : he could not 
endure contradiction or opposition, least of all from the 
Protestant Churchmen of his diocese. 

Mr. Shore, having failed in getting a new nomination 
from Mr. Cosens, as Curate of Bridgetown Chapel, and 
having gathered around him a large and deeply attached 
congregation, had now to face a great difficulty. He was 
certain that the Bishop would eventually refuse to licence 
him to any other Curacy in the Diocese of Exeter, and 
would refuse to sign his testimonials for work in any other 
diocese, thus shutting him out of any future work in the 
Church of England, and reducing his victim, together 
with his wife and family, to a state of abject poverty, if not 
starvation. What was he to do under such painful circum 
stances ? The Duke of Somerset, who owned Bridgetown 
Chapel, at this juncture offered him permission to continue 
the use of the chapel, apart from the jurisdiction of the 
Church of England, and at the same time secured for him 

1 The Case of the Rev. James Shore t M.A. By Himself, p. 18. 

2 Ibid. p. 1 8, note. 


an adequate income as its minister. Mr. Shore decided 
that he would accept this generous offer, and in order that 
he might remove, as he thought, every legal difficulty in 
the way, he had the chapel registered as a Dissenting 
Chapel, and himself took the necessary oaths declaring 
himself a Dissenting minister, as required by the Toleration 
Acts, after which he officiated in Bridgetown Chapel, using 
the Liturgy of the Church of England. He now thought 
himself safe from any further interference from the Bishop 
of Exeter; but in this he was mistaken. The Bishop de 
cided on prosecuting him in the Arches Court, for the 
offence that he, being still legally a clergyman of the 
Church of England, had unlawfully officiated in Bridge 
town Chapel without the authority, and contrary to the 
monition of his Diocesan. Of course the Bishop might 
have left Mr. Shore alone, unmolested by the law, with its 
pains and penalties. In his pamphlet, Mr. Shore forcibly 
pointed out that : "The late Rev. John Hawker, of Ply 
mouth, was not proceeded against by the Bishop. After 
withdrawing from his lordship s jurisdiction, Mr. Hawker 
continued, for about fifteen years, to use the services as I 
use them at Bridgetown in a chapel, too, which was 
designed, when erected, for the Establishment ; and yet 
he was left entirely unmolested. I believe, also, that Mr. 
Hawker did not qualify under the Toleration Act, as I did. 
Indeed, I have not been able to find one single seceding 
clergyman who has so qualified except myself ; and yet, in 
every other diocese throughout the land, numbers of seced 
ing clergymen are preaching without let or hindrance, 
whilst I for doing so am in gaol." l It was, therefore, not 
without reason that Mr. Shore complained of the Bishop s 
action towards him as " an undue and oppressive exercise 
of the law." 

Greatly to the delight of the Puseyites the action against 
Mr. Shore was pushed forward, and at length, on June 20, 
1846, Sir Herbert Jenner Fust delivered judgment in the 
Court of Arches. He said : 

" I am of opinion that the proctor for the promoter has proved 
the articles charging Mr. Shore with having been guilty of publicly 

1 The Case of the Rev. James Shore, M.A. By Himself, pp. 22, 23. 


reading prayers, according to the form prescribed by the Book of 
Common Prayer, and of preaching in an unconsecrated chapel 
without a licence ; that he has thereby incurred Ecclesiastical cen 
sure; and that he must be admonished to refrain from offending 
in like manner in future. Should he be guilty of a repetition of 
this offence, it will be not only against his Diocesan, but against 
the authority of this Court. Though this gentleman is at this 
moment a minister of the Established Church of this land, from 
which office he cannot of his own authority relieve himself, still I 
do not think I am entitled to depose him from the ministry. I 
content myself by pronouncing that the articles have been suffi 
ciently proved. I admonish Mr. Shore to abstain from offending 
in like manner in future, in the parish of Bury Pomeroy, and in the 
Diocese of Exeter, and elsewhere in the Province of Canterbury; 
and I condemn him in the costs." 1 

Mr. Shore appealed from this sentence to the Judicial 
Committee of Privy Council. Their lordships gave judg 
ment on February 14, 1848, confirming the sentence of the 
Court of Arches. Early the next year the Rev. James 
Shore, still owing to the Bishop of Exeter the sum of 
.115, 33. 5d., being a portion of his lordship s costs in 
prosecuting Mr. Shore, that prelate caused the unhappy 
defendant to be arrested, on March 31, 1849, and com 
mitted to Exeter Gaol, there to remain until he had paid 
the money. And there he might have remained for all the 
High Church Bishop cared, were it not that some friends 
of Mr. Shore subscribed the money needed, and then he 
was released from prison. 

It was not until 1870 that the law was altered under 
which Mr. Shore suffered. By the Clerical Disabilities 
Act, 33 and 34 Victoria, c. 91, provision is made by which 
a clergyman can resign his Orders in the Church of 
England, free from any penalty. But if he resigns his 
Orders he can never again, however anxious he may be 
to do so, officiate in the Church of England. 2 

1 Robertson s Ecclesiastical Reports, vol. i. p. 399. 

2 For further particulars of Mr. Shore s case, see The Case of the Rev. fames 
Shore, in Reply to the Rev. W. B. Cosens. By the Rev. James Shore, pp. 25. 
London: Partridge & Oakey. 1849. Aft, Appeal to My Fellow-Townsmen on 
Behalf of the Rev. James Shore. By Sir Culling E. Eardley, Bart., pp. 24. 
Torquay : Elliott & Wreyford. 1849. 


Dr. Pusey s suspension for two years from preaching 
in the University pulpit ended in June 1845. Although he 
did not expect to preach again until the following February, 
Pusey early began to prepare for it. He sought the advice 
of friends, some of whom were anxious that he should preach 
again the sermon for which he had been condemned by 
the Six Doctors. Pusey s opponents were not idle. On 
January 5, 1846, the Rev. Charles P. Golightly, of Oriel 
College, addressed a letter to the Vice-Chancellor, quoting 
some passages from a letter written by Dr. Pusey, in the 
previous October, to the English Churchman, and demand 
ing that before he preached his forthcoming sermon Pusey 
should be required to subscribe again to Article XXII. 
The Vice-Chancellor, however, while disapproving of several 
of Pusey s statements, did not think there was any necessity 
to grant that which Mr. Golightly had requested. 

The sermon was preached on February i, 1846, and 
Pusey took for his subject, Entire Absolution of the Peni 
tent. Of course the Cathedral was crowded in every part. 
" Every inch on the floor of the Church," writes a friendly 
eye-witness, "was occupied. Dr. Pusey had to move 
slowly through the dense mass on his way to the corner 
of the Cathedral where the Vice-Chancellor and Doctors 
assemble, visible to nobody but those immediately along 
the line he had to pass ; his perfectly pallid, furrowed, 
mortified face looking almost like jagged marble." 1 He 
took for his text John xx. 21-23, and in his first sentence 
referred to the sermon for which he had been suspended : 
" It will," he said, " be in the memory of some that when, 
nearly three years past, Almighty God (for secret faults 
which he knoweth, and from which, I trust, He willed to 
cleanse me), allowed me to be deprived for a time of this 
my office among you, I was endeavouring to mitigate the 
stern doctrine of the heavy character of a Christian s sins." 
He then proceeded to preach his first sermon advocating 
Auricular Confession and priestly absolution. He had 
already taught it in his adapted Roman books : now he 
preached it from the University pulpit. The time had not 

1 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. iii. p. 59. 


yet come for himself to practise what he had so long urged 
on others. Throughout the sermon it is assumed that 
Confession to a priest, and priestly absolution, are God s 
ordinary method of pardoning sin ; and cleansing the soul 
from its stains. It is admitted, in one passage, that those 
who have perfect contrition, provided they long for absolu 
tion, are absolved directly by God without priestly absolu 
tion ; but this is also the teaching of Rome. All through 
the discourse Pusey assumes that hardly any such perfectly 
contrite sinners are to be found on earth. A few extracts 
from the sermon itself may here serve to give my readers 
an idea of the thoroughly Popish teaching given in it : 

" And now, brethren, I would proceed to speak of that great 
authoritative act [of priestly absolution], whereby God in the Church 
still forgives the sins of the penitent." 1 

"The one object, as I have explained, of this series of sermons, 
is to minister to one class of souls, those whose consciences being 
oppressed by the memory of past sin, more or less grievous, long to 
know how they may be replaced in that condition in which God 
once placed them ; and now, too, my object is, not to speak of 
discipline in general, or what were best for the Church or for her 
members generally, but of that mercy which, by the power of the 
Keys, God pours out upon the penitent. This, then, is probably 
one ground why so little needed to be said in the New Testament, 
as to the forgiveness of sins of a Christian very grievously fallen, 
that our Lord had left a living provision in His Church, whereby [i.e. 
through Auricular Confession and priestly absolution] all penitents, 
however fallen, should be restored." 5 

" Those who form to themselves theories of remission of sin 
distinct from the provision laid up by God in the Church, do for 
sake the Fountain of living waters, and hew them out cisterns, 
broken cisterns, which hold no water. " 3 

" Grievous sins after Baptism are remitted by Absolution ; and 
the judgment, if the penitent be sincere, is an earnest of the judg 
ment of Christ, and is confirmed by Him." 4 

" So now, as soon as His Priest has, in His Name, pronounced 
His forgiveness on earth, the sins of the true penitent are forgiven 
in Heaven." 5 

1 Entire Absolution of the Penitent. By the Rev. E. B. Pusey, D.D., p. 4. 
Oxford : Parker. 1846. 

z Ibid. pp. 14, 15. 3 Ibid. p. 24. 4 Ibid. p. 26. 

5 Ibid. p. 39. 


" He hath not left us comfortless, but hath left others with His 
authority, to convey to sinners in His Name the forgiveness of their 
sins." ! 

" It may be one of the fruits of the Incarnation, and a part of 
the dignity thereby conferred upon our nature, that God would 
rather work His miracles of grace through man, than immediately 
by Himself." 2 

When the sermon was published, a preface of seventeen 
pages was printed with it, in which Pusey said that the 
benefits of Auricular Confession and priestly absolution 
were not for grievous sinners only ; but also " for all who 
can, through its ministry, approach with lightened, more 
kindled hearts, to the Holy Communion." 3 He even went 
so far as to assert that it was open to the Church, even 
now, to " enforce " private Confession to priests, should she 
desire to do so. "It is," he wrote, "a matter of discipline, 
open to the Church, to enforce public penance, as in the 
Ancient Church, or private Confession, as now in the Roman 
Church ; or to leave the exercise of it to the consciences of 
individuals." 4 Who, after such a statement as this, can 
assert that Pusey thought enforced Confession wrong in 
principle ? 

In this sermon Pusey insisted most of all on the benefits 
of priestly absolution. On the first Sunday in Advent (Nov 
ember 29th) of the same year he preached again before the 
University, and this time he emphasised, most of all, the 
supposed advantages of secret Confession to priests. But 
who, on this occasion, listening to his pressing exhortations 
to Confession, could ever have dreamed that Pusey though 
he had then been hearing Confessions for eight years had 
never been to Confession himself ? He had urged others to 
wash and be clean, but he had never washed himself ! He 
was, in this matter, like the Pharisees of old, of whom it is 
recorded, " they say, and do not." Apparently he lacked 
the courage which he required of other people. Not the 
least remarkable portion of Pusey s biography is the story 
of how he came to go to Confession for the first time, soon 

1 Pusey s Entire Absolution of the Penitent, p. 39. 

2 Ibid. p. 45. 3 Ibid. p. viii. 4 Ibid. p. xv. 


after his second sermon on Confession. On September 26, 
1844, Pusey wrote to Keble : 

11 1 am so shocked at myself that I dare not lay my wounds bare 
to any one : since I have seen the benefit of Confession to others, I 
have looked round whether I could unburthen myself to any one, 
but there is a reason against every one. I dare not so shock people : 
and so I go on, having no such comfort as in good Bishop Andrewes 
words, to confess myself an unclean worm, a dead dog, a putrid 
carcase, and pray Him to heal my leprosy as He did on earth, and 
to raise me from the dead : to give me sight, and to forgive me the 
10,000 talents ; and I must guide myself as best I can, because, as 
things are, I dare not seek it elsewhere." 1 

This is indeed sad and pitiful language coming from one 
so intensely in earnest about his own soul s salvation, yet, 
apparently, thinking that he could not with any certainty 
obtain the pardon he longed for, direct from the Saviour 
Himself! He was, truly, a "blind leader of the blind." 
Later on he wrote a pitiful letter to Keble, which shows how 
far he had gone wrong, not merely in Popish error, but in 
Popish superstition also. He said that " by God s mercy " 
it ought to have been " through my own folly " he was 
wearing "haircloth " again, but he would like to wear " some 
sharper sort" ; and he should " like to be bid to use the 
Discipline " a lash of hard knotted cords, with which to 
whip his bare back ! 2 Two days after he preached the 
University sermon last alluded to, viz., on December ist, 
Pusey went down to Hursley and made \\isfirst Confession 
to Keble, whom he ever after, until Keble s death, took for 
his Father Confessor. 

The effect of Pusey s Confessional work on his penitents 
is thus described by Dean Boyle, of Salisbury, who was at 
Oxford at this time : " I have, unfortunately, had many 
friends who submitted themselves to Pusey as a spiritual 
guide, and fully adopted his theory of Confession and direc 
tion, and in nearly every case I have seen traces of enfeebled 
intellect, and what I must call loss of real moral perception. 
If the system so zealously advocated by Pusey were ever to 

1 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. iii. p. 96. 2 Ibid. pp. 100, 101. 


be generally adopted, a bad time would come to English 
homes." l 

Hundreds of volumes have been written on the subject 
of Auricular Confession, for and against it. It is manifestly 
impossible in a work like this to deal adequately with it. 
Besides, this book is written, primarily, for the use of those 
whose minds are already made up on this great question on 
Protestant lines. But I cannot pass away from it without 
urging my readers to study carefully an invaluable work, 
reprinted in the Library of Anglo- Catholic Theology, and 
issued under the superintendence of a committee, of which 
Dr. Pusey himself was a member. It is entitled The Peniten 
tial Discipline of the Primitive Church. By Nathaniel Marshall, 
D.D. I know no book which so thoroughly upsets the 
claims of priestly absolution put forth by Dr. Pusey and the 
modern Ritualists. There is another work on the subject 
by an old-fashioned High Churchman, published in 1875, 
treating the question in a masterly manner, historically and 
doctrinally, which I cannot too highly commend. It is 
entitled An Examination into the Doctrine and Practice of Con 
fession, and was written by the Rev. William Edward Jelf, 
B.D. It seems hard to understand how any thoughtful 
person, with an open mind, can study these two books 
without rejecting the whole sacerdotal claim of Auricular 
Confession and Priestly Absolution. 

The Bishop of Winchester (Dr. Sumner) had this year 
to deal with a remarkable application made to him by a 
clergyman who had seceded to the Church of Rome, but 
was now anxious to be permitted by his lordship to officiate 
once more in the Church of England. Since leaving the 
Church of Rome this clergyman had lived in retirement for 
three years before making his application. The Bishop 
replied that he had received his application " with emotions 
of thankfulness to God," but before granting his request he 
wished for fuller satisfaction as to the " entire accordance 
of his present opinions with the doctrines set forth in the 
Articles and formularies," and " especially in regard to the 
principal points of difference between our own Church and 

1 Recollections of the Very Rev. G. D. Boyle> Dean of Salisbury, p. 115. 
London : 1895. 


that of Rome." Before receiving the clergyman s reply a 
remarkable circumstance was made known to the Bishop, 
which is thus described by his biographer : 

"Meanwhile, trustworthy information had reached the Bishop 
that the clergyman in question had been in the habit, within the last 
few months, of attending a Roman Catholic place of worship. He 
accordingly wrote to him as follows : I think it necessary to 
acquaint you, that since I last wrote, a statement has been made to 
me to which I am desirous of calling your attention in the first 
instance. It is asserted to me, on the authority of a Roman Catholic 

priest at , that so recently as the beginning of the present year, 

you have attended at the celebration of the Romish service in the 
chapel of . It becomes necessary for me to put to you the ex 
plicit question, whether this allegation is true, either in respect of the 
chapel mentioned, or of any other place of worship of the Romish 
communion, since the period when you received the Sacrament of 
the Lord s Supper in Church, as a declaration of your desire 
to return into the communion of the Church of England. 

" In reply, the clergyman, without referring at all to the charge 
brought against him, begged leave to withdraw his application for 
permission to minister again in the Church of England." l 

Conduct like that of this clergyman naturally raises the 
question, was he simply a Jesuit in disguise ? 

In this year the Puseyites began to discuss the wisdom of 
introducing Retreats into the Church of England. Keble 
wrote on Ash Wednesday about it to the Rev. W. J. Butler, 
Vicar of Wantage (afterwards Dean of Lincoln): " Marriott 
wrote me word that he thought something in the nature of 
a Retreat might be managed at Leeds, under the clergy of 
St. Saviour s. But failing that he seemed to say it was 
not impossible that he might be able to do something 
towards such a plan, especially if a negotiation succeeded 
which he was then engaged in with Newman for the loan 
of the house at Littlemore." 2 Butler hailed the scheme 
with delight, as a means of propagating the Confessional 
amongst the clergy. He wrote to Keble, on March 5, 
1846 : 

" I was in Oxford for but one day, and that was spent entirely in 
one place. Indeed, I went there merely to see Dr. Pusey, and to 

1 Life of Bishop Stunner, pp. 303-305. 

2 Life and Letters of Dean Butler, p. 34. 


be away from every one ; I don t know why I should hesitate to 
mention it to you ; to make a general Confession to him. Of course 
my thoughts were on this one subject, and though I said something 
to him some days before in London about the Retreat, yet we did 
not recur to it. I can only say that I feel more than ever anxious 
to see something of the kind established. ... As far as I know, 
though many are desirous to make a Confession, and to continue it 
as a habit through life, the thing is all but impossible. Those few 
who are in the habit of taking general Confessions are fully occupied 
without the addition of having to act as constant spiritual guides. 
But men might go to a Retreat periodically, and there receive the 
advantage of regular Confession, and the continual preparation 
for it." 1 

1 Life and Letters of Dean Butler, p. 35. 


Trouble at St. Saviour s, Leeds Secessions to Rome Hook s vigorous 
attack on Pusey " It is mere Jesuitism" "A semi-Papal colony" 
Hook hopes all the Romanisers will go to Rome Bishop Phill- 
potts prosecutes a Puseyite clergyman The Cross on a Communion 
Table The present state of the law on this point Reducing the 
distance to Rome Sackville College, East Grinstead The Rev. 
J. M. Neale inhibited Freeland v. Neale The Gorham Case 
Judgment of the Court of Arches Judgment of the Judicial Com 
mittee of Privy Council Puseyite Protest against the Judgment 
Dr. Pusey and Keble wish to prosecute Gorham for heresy Bishop 
Phillpotts threatens to excommunicate the Archbishop of Canter 
buryThe Exeter Synod The case of the Rev. T. W. Allies His 
extraordinary and disloyal conduct His visit to Rome The Pope 
tells him that Pusey has "prepared the way for Catholicism" 
What Mr. Allies told the Pope Allies secedes to Rome Corre 
spondence with Pusey on Auricular Confession Startling charges 
against Pusey " In fear and trembling on their knees before you" 
"The rules of the Church of Rome are your rules" How the 
Oxford Movement helped Rome Wilberforce calls Pusey "a decoy 
bird" for the Papal net He says that he is "doing the work of a 
Roman Confessor" The Papal Aggression Lord John Russell s 
Durham Letter Bishop Blomfield on the Romeward Movement 
St. Paul s, Knightsbridge St. Barnabas, Pimlico Riots in St. 
Barnabas Church Resignation of the Rev. W. J. E. Bennett St. 
Saviour s, Leeds Traitorous resolutions of twelve clergymen A 
Confessional inquiry by the Bishop The Clergy defend questioning 
women on the Seventh Commandment. 

THE opening of the year 1847 brought with it worry and 
trouble for Dr. Pusey, and for his friend, Dr. Hook, Vicar 
of Leeds. On New Year s Day, one of the Curates of St. 
Saviour s, Leeds, the Rev. R. G. Macmullen, with two lay 
men from the same parish, seceded to the Church of Rome. 
It was the same Mr. Macmullen, whose Jesuitical conduct 
with regard to his Degree at Oxford, has already been 
described. Pusey had sent him to St. Saviour s, and this 
was the result. Hook was indignant. He wrote to Pusey 

two days before the actual reception of Macmullen into 



the Roman Communion : " You are aware by this time 
that Macmullen and his dupes have gone over to the 
Mother of Abominations, guilty of the deadly sins of 
heresy and schism. Ward [Vicar of St. Saviour s] and 
Case remain, I suppose to make more dupes ; though 
strong measures must be taken on my part. I cannot 
permit a Church and establishment to remain in Leeds 
for the destruction of souls without seeking to abate the 
nuisance." 1 Things must have gone very far wrong indeed 
before such a pronounced High Churchman as Hook 
could seek to put down as a "nuisance" the first attempt 
to illustrate Tractarian principles in practice. The Rev. 
Richard Ward, mentioned by Hook, was the first Vicar of 
St. Saviour s, and was appointed by Dr. Pusey. He had 
not been long at Leeds before trouble arose. As late as 
November 14, 1846, Pusey sent word to Hook: " I have 
entire confidence in Ward, as a loyal son of the Church of 
England ; " 2 to which assertion Hook replied most em 
phatically : "Ward is not loyal to the Church of England. 
He has himself told me and written to me that to the 
Church of England he could not defer." 3 In this letter 
Hook complained bitterly of Pusey s conduct : 

"And what do I complain of?" he asks. "I complain of your 
building a Church and getting a foot in my parish to propagate 
principles which I detest having come under the plea of assisting 
me to propagate the principles I uphold. I complain of your 
having selected one to oppose me and my principles who approached 
me as a friend, and who now admits that in so doing he did wrong, 
and that before he undertook to oppose me by causing a division in 
Leeds, he ought to have reflected that he was not the proper person 
to be your agent. I have said to him, and he has wept Et tu, 
Brute! It is really cruel, mere Jesuitism, thus to misrepresent the 
injured party the party injured through an excess of charity, as the 
persecuting party. It is wicked." 4 

Pusey answered by telling Hook : "You are no more 
responsible for St. Saviour s than for London " ; which was 
almost equivalent to telling him to mind his own business. 
But Hook was not the sort of man to be sat upon, or to be 

1 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. iii. p. 128. 

2 Ibid. p. 119. 8 Ibid. p. 120. 4 Ibid. p. 120. 


moved from his purpose by the sickening appeals for peace 
from the chief cause of the disturbance : " You tell me," 
he rejoined, " I have no more to do with St. Saviour s 
than with London. Be it so. But if my neighbour has a 
hornet s nest close to my garden gates, and my children 
are likely to be stung by them, I must ask him to remove 
the nest, or I send to the constable. And if there be 
Romanising at St. Saviour s, I shall send to the Right 
Reverend Constable, come what will." l After some 
further correspondence, in the course of which Hook 
termed St. Saviour s Church " a semi-Papal colony," whose 
clergy " proclaim that it is sinful to speak against the 
Church of Rome " ; the Vicar of Leeds again demanded, 
on December 30, 1846, that Pusey should induce Ward 
to resign the Vicarage of St. Saviour s : 

" I called upon you most solemnly in the name of the Great 
God," wrote Hook, " to persuade Ward to resign, and to withdraw 
your other people. It is now too late to do this entirely, but if you 
have any sense of honour or of justice, you should withdraw Ward 
and give the presentation to the Bishop. I must take steps to 
denounce you and your followers as being in my opinion heretics. 
I regard you as such from your last letter. If your view of the 
Eucharist be not that taken by the Church of England, instead of 
bending your own spirit to the Church, you must, as you say, leave 
the Church." 2 

The result was that Ward resigned. Pusey asked Arch 
deacon Manning to suggest a new Incumbent in his room. 
He does not seem to have nominated anybody, but he 
expressed in very plain language (on January 23, 1847) t 
Pusey what was the real tendency of Puseyism. "You 
know," he said, " how long I have to you openly expressed 
my conviction that a false position has been taken up in 
the Church of England. The direct and certain tendency, 
I believe, of what remains of the original Movement is to 
the Roman Church. You know the minds of men about 
us better than I do, and will therefore know both how 
strong an impression the claims of Rome have made upon 
them, and how feeble and fragmentary are the reasons on 

1 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. iii. p. 122. 3 Ibid. p. 128. 


which they have made a sudden stand or halt in the line 
on which they have been, perhaps insensibly, moving for 
years." 1 

There were those who thought the secession of the Rev. 
R. G. Macmullen a thing to be deplored by members of 
the Church of England. Dr. Hook was not one of this 
class. "To true-hearted members of the Church of 
England," said Hook, "the departure of Mr. Macmullen 
and his disciples is a satisfaction and relief ; we may hope that 
all Romanisers will follow his example. I have no sympathy 
with the cant of those who urge us to retain such persons 
in the Church, by permitting them to revile at will the prin 
ciples of the English Reformation. I am told that Mr. Mac 
mullen would have laboured in the Church if he had been 
permitted to act thus. I rejoice to think that he is gone." 2 

Mr. Gladstone urged Pusey, in view of the secessions 
to Rome from St. Saviour s, Leeds, to set himself right with 
public opinion by some explicit and public statement 
against the Church of Rome. But he refused to do so. 
On February 8, 1847, ne wrote to Mr. Gladstone : " If I 
did say anything publicly about the Church of Rome, it 
would be that no good can come of this general declama 
tion against it, without owning what is good and great 
in it. Many feel this, who love the Church of England 
deeply." 3 Pusey s kindly feeling towards Roman Catholics 
was shown the previous year, in the statement he made to 
his brother on the question of the endowment of Roman 
Catholicism : " For myself, I hope that everything done 
for the Roman Catholics will work to good, both in doing 
away irritation at present, and tending ultimately to bring 
us together. I do not see anything to object to in giving 
seats to Irish Roman Catholic Bishops, or endowing Col 
leges for them, or paying their clergy if they would receive 
it. I do not see anything amiss, or any principle violated, 
in doing any thing positively for the Roman Catholics." 4 In 
this respect Pusey was, beyond doubt, a very true friend to 
the Church of Rome. 

1 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. iii. p. 135. 

2 Life and Letters of Dean Hook, vol. ii. p. 2OO. 

8 Life of Dr. Piisey, vol. iii. p. 146. 4 Ibid. p. 171. 


In the month of May 1847, the Bishop of Exeter pro 
secuted one of his Puseyite clergy, the Rev. W. G. Parks 
Smith, Incumbent of St. George s Chapel, Torquay, for a 
breach of the law in setting on the Communion Table two 
Vases of Flowers, and a Cross two feet high, wreathed with 
flowers. The Bishop had for several years attended and 
taken part in the services in this Chapel, and had again and 
again entreated, and even enjoined Mr. Smith to abstain from 
all changes in matters not required by the Rubric or other 
law of the Church ; but Mr. Smith had paid no attention to 
his Bishop s wishes. The result was that his lordship issued 
a Commission, under the Church Discipline Act, to inquire 
into the charges brought against Mr. Smith. The Com 
mission met in the Chapter House of Exeter Cathedral, 
and after hearing evidence, and counsel for the defence, 
decided that -&prima facie case had been made out against 
the defendant. Thereupon, it was announced, on behalf 
of Mr. Smith, that to prevent further legal action he would 
consent that the Bishop should pronounce sentence. This 
his lordship did, on May 28th. He declared that Mr. 
Smith had acted contrary to the law of the Church, ad 
monished him not to offend again in like manner, and 
ordered him to pay the costs of the proceedings. The 
following brief extracts from the judgment are interest 
ing : 

" If one person may at his pleasure decorate the Lord s Table 
with a Cross, another may equally claim to set a Crucifix upon it 
whilst a third might think it necessary to erect some symbol of 
Puritan doctrine or feeling to mark his reprobation of his Roman 
ising neighbour." 

"The only direction in the Rubric is, that the Table at the 
Communion time have a fair white linen cloth upon it ; and the 
82nd Canon appoints, that the Communion Table shall be covered 
in time of Divine Service, with a carpet of silk, or other decent stuff, 
and with a fair linen cloth at the time of ministration. This must 
be holden virtually to exclude all else, except what is used, or may 
be used, in the service itself. If any one ventures to go further to 
add anything which he may deem an ornament he does it at his 

" Such a thing [as the use of the material Cross on the Lord s 


Table] was never heard of, during more than the first three centuries 
of the Christian era ; and Durandas, the authority relied on by the 
defendant s advocate, for saying, that the proper place for the Cross 
is the Lord s Table, was a Bishop and Canonist of the thirteenth 
century ; therefore very little entitled to our attention on a question 
respecting the present law of our Church, even if the reasons stated 
by him were as solid as they are, in truth, shadowy and contra 
dictory." 1 

The part taken by the Bishop of Exeter in this case 
shows that, however domineering his nature might be, he 
was prepared to prosecute those he thought law-breakers, 
quite apart from their ordinary theological views. The 
present state of the law as to the use of the Cross on the 
Communion Table is thus explained by Mr. Whitehead : 
" It must not, however, be attached to the Communion 
Table or placed upon a ledge immediately over the Table, 
so as to appear to form one structure with it, and it makes 
no difference whether it is fixed or moveable. It may, how 
ever, be placed on the sill of the eastern window, five feet 
above the Communion Table, or it may surmount a Chancel 
screen. Of course, in no case may it be an object of super 
stitious reverence, or carried in processions, or otherwise 
used ceremonially." 2 The Bishop s judgment as to the use 
of Vases of Flowers on the Communion Table was over 
ruled in the Court of Arches, by the judgment of Sir Robert 
Phillimore, in the case of Elphinstone v. Purchas, delivered 
on February 3, 1870. 3 

The leading Puseyite newspaper, the English Churchman, 
in a leading article, very clearly revealed the real object of 
the Puseyite party. It said : " With those who seek to 
reduce the distance which separates us from Rome, to the 
narrowest limits which a due regard to Catholic faith and 
practice will admit of, we readily and heartily avow our 
sympathy." 4 

1 English Churchman, June 3, 1847, where a verbatim report of the judgment 
is printed. 

2 Whitehead s Church Law, p. 103, 2nd edition. London : Stevens & Sons. 

3 Phillimore s Ecclesiastical Judgments, pp. 191, 192. 

4 English Churchman, October 7, 1847, p. 745. 


The Bishop of Chichester (Dr. Gilbert) felt it necessary 
to take notice of the affairs of Sackville College, East 
Grinstead, an institution founded early in the seventeenth 
century as a kind of almshouses, consisting of a Warden, 
two Assistant Wardens, five brethren, six sisters, and four 
teen probationers. In the month of May 1846, the Rev. 
J. M. Neale, M.A., was appointed Warden, and as such con 
ducted Divine Service, and administered Holy Communion 
to the inmates in the College Chapel. Early in 1847 a 
complaint was made to the Bishop of Chichester as to the 
proceedings in the Chapel, which stated that a Vulgate 
Bible and a copy of the Roman Breviary were seen there, 
that there was a " suspicion " that the English Bible in the 
Chapel was the Douay, and that a large Cross was erected 
on the Chancel screen. Mr. Neale, in reply, proved that the 
English Bible was the authorised edition with notes ; and 
asserted that there could be no valid objection to having a 
Latin Vulgate Bible for his own private use ; and that as to 
the Roman Breviary, he was engaged at the time in Liturgi 
cal studies which required the use of the Breviary, and that 
it had been accidentally left in the Chapel by mistake. On 
April 12, 1847, the Bishop wrote to Mr. Neale requesting 
him to have the goodness to communicate with him before 
he officiated " in any Church or Chapel " in the Diocese. Mr. 
Neale thereupon informed the Bishop that Sackville College 
was outside his jurisdiction, and therefore no licence was 
needed to officiate in it, since he was only doing so as the 
head of a private family. On May 7th the Bishop had an 
interview with Mr. Neale in the vestry of East Grinstead 
Church, of which the latter gentleman subsequently pub 
lished a report. Mr. Neale informed him that he person 
ally would prefer to have his lordship s licence to officiate, 
but his wishes had been overruled by the authorities of the 
College ; on which the Bishop remarked : " I ought to 
say that I probably might not have been disposed to grant 
the licence. I could not, if the reports which I have heard of 
Romanistic proceedings in the College be true." Later on 
in the day the Bishop went with Mr. Neale and a " Mr. H." 
who had first called the Bishop s attention to what was 


going on to the College Chapel. What took place therein 
is thus reported by Mr. Neale : 

" BISHOP I am not here with visitatorial authority ; if I were, 
I should sweep away all that (pointing to the altar). 

" Mr. H. Flowers and all, my Lord ? 

" I SAID The Altar, my Lord ? 

" BISHOP I know nothing of Altars ; the Church of England 
knows nothing of Altars or sacrifices. I would retain a decent low 
Table. I would not feed Christ s little ones with the wood of the 
Cross. " 1 

On the very next day the Bishop sent Mr. Neale a 
formal Inhibition " from celebrating Divine Worship, and 
from the exercise of clerical functions in my Diocese." 
With the Inhibition he sent the following letter : " I can 
not transmit to you the following Inhibition without adding 
a fervent prayer that God may be pleased to open your 
eyes to the dishonour done to Him by supposing that His 
spiritual service can be promoted by presenting to the eyes 
and thoughts of worshippers the frippery with which you 
have transformed the simplicity of the Chapel at Sackville 
College into an imitation of the degrading superstitions of 
an erroneous Church." 2 

Mr. Neale simply ignored the Inhibition, and went on 
conducting the services in the Chapel as though nothing 
had happened. The Bishop seems to have left him alone 
for five months, but then, finding him still rebellious, he 
sent the case on for trial in the Court of Arches. On June 
3, 1848, the case Freeland v. Neale was heard by Sir H. 
Jenner Fust, who delivered judgment the same day. He 
said : 

" I should like to have heard some authority for the statement 
that a number of persons constituting a corporation, as the inhabit 
ants of Sackville College are said to be, is a private family. It is 
possible that the inmates of the College may be under one continu 
ous roof, that they have one common table, but those circum 
stances will not render them a private family or household; each 
member has, I presume, his separate apartments allotted. ... It is 
impossible then to say that this was an assemblage of a private 

1 A Statement of Proceedings against the Warden of Sackvillt College, p. 9. 
London : Joseph Masters. 1853. 

2 Ibid. p. 9. 


family. In Barnes v. Shore I said, what I now repeat, that where 
two or three are gathered together, who do not strictly form a part 
of a family, there is a congregation, and the reading to them the 
service of the Church is a reading in public. I am of opinion that 
Mr. Neale is proved guilty of an ecclesiastical offence." J 

The Judge thereupon admonished Mr. Neale not to 
offend any more, and condemned him to pay the costs of 
the proceedings. It was remarkable that the very law 
which the Puseyites had put into operation against the 
Rev. James Shore, should now be used against one of their 
own party. Both were charged with and condemned for 
the same offence ; the only difference being that Mr. 
Shore admitted that he officiated in public, which Mr. Neale 
denied, though his denial had no effect upon his Judge. 
When the Protestant Mr. Shore was condemned, the Pusey 
ites shouted for joy ; but when Mr. Neale was condemned, 
they howled with indignation. 

I respectfully suggest that the case of Mr. Neale has its 
lesson for our own day and generation. In almost every 
Diocese private Chapels and Oratories are set up in 
Convents and Monasteries, where lawless and thoroughly 
Romanising services are performed. All such services are, 
as we have seen, illegal without the consent and licence of 
the Bishop of the Diocese. But what do we find ? Instead 
of Inhibiting the clergy who officiate in these Oratories, the 
Bishops actually grant them their licences to officiate. It 
is within their power to put a stop, with a stroke of their 
pen, to all the Romanising extravagances which take place 
in these buildings ; but they do nothing at all, unless it be 
to grant the law-breakers their Episcopal permission to 
officiate. After which they have the daring to go into the 
House of Lords, and tell the country that the Bishops are 
doing everything in their power to put down lawlessness ! 

The commencement of the celebrated Gorham Case 
dates from the month of August 1847, when the Lord 
Chancellor Cottenham nominated the Rev. George Cor 
nelius Gorham to the living of Brampford Speke, in the 
Diocese of Exeter. Mr. Gorham was a scholar of repute, 

1 Robertson s Ecclesiastical Reports, vol. i. pp. 650, 651. 


having been formerly a Fellow of Queen s College, Cam 
bridge. He had been in Holy Orders thirty-six years at the 
time of his nomination, had served in six dioceses, and bore 
an unblemished character and a high reputation. In 1846 
he had been presented by Lord Chancellor Lyndhurst to the 
living of St. Just-in-Penwith, at that time in the Diocese of 
Exeter, and while there had incurred the wrathful indigna 
tion of his Diocesan, Bishop Phillpotts, by advertising for 
a Curate "free from Tractarian error." When, in the 
following year, Mr. Gorham was presented to Brampford 
Speke, his Bishop had neither forgotten nor forgiven his 
alleged offence ; and showed his displeasure by refusing to 
institute him, until after he had examined him as to his 
soundness in the faith. The Bishop s doubts centred round 
one point of doctrine only. He believed that Mr. Gorham 
held Evangelical views as to Baptismal Regeneration, and 
he considered that any one holding such views had no 
right to minister in the Church of England. Hence arose 
one of the most important theological contests which the 
Church of England had witnessed since the Protestant 
Reformation. On its issue depended the question whether 
Evangelical clergymen should be banished from the Church 
of England. It could not be disputed that men holding 
their views as to Baptismal Regeneration had officiated in 
our Reformed Church since the Reformation, nor that the 
overwhelming majority of the Reformers held their views. 
What the Puseyites aimed at was the capture of the Church 
of England for themselves, and to banish for ever decided 
Protestantism from its fold. I have no doubt that these 
results would have followed the victory of their cause in 
the Gorham Case. But, thank God, they failed, and vic 
tory remained on the side of God s truth and Evangelical 

Mr. Gorham humbly submitted to the Bishop of Exe 
ter s examination, though he might, considering his learning 
and past career, have justly objected to being treated as 
though he were some ignorant young curate just fresh 
from College. When Mr. Gorham had thus placed himself 
in the Bishop s hands, he found it no easy task to get out 


again. The examination was inquisitorial and prolonged. 
It began on December lyth, and was continued at intervals 
until the loth of March, 1848, during which time Mr. 
Gorham had to write answers to no fewer than 149 questions 
on the single subject of Baptismal Efficacy ! It looked as 
though the Bishop wanted to worry his victim to the utmost 
of his power. The day after the examination ended, the 
Bishop signified his decision to refuse to institute Mr. 
Gorham to the living of Brampford Speke, on the ground 
of unsoundness of doctrine, as revealed by him in the 

As quickly as possible after the Bishop s refusal to insti 
tute, the case was brought into the Court of Arches. The 
Dean of Arches (Sir H. Jenner Fust) thereupon issued a 
monition to the Bishop of Exeter to show cause why he 
should not institute Mr. Gorham within fifteen days failing 
which the Dean would himself proceed to institute him. 
The case did not come before the Court on its merits until 
February 17, 1849. On August 2, 1849, Sir H. Jenner Fust 
delivered a lengthy judgment, concluding as follows : 

" Therefore I say, that as the doctrine of the Church of England 
undoubtedly is, that children baptized are regenerated at Baptism, 
and are undoubtedly saved if they die without committing actual 
sin, Mr. Gorham has maintained and does maintain opinions 
opposed to that Church of which he professes himself a member 
and Minister. The only remaining question is, has the Bishop 
shown sufficient cause why he should not institute Mr. Gorham 
to the Vicarage of Brampford Speke? I am clearly of opinion 
that the Bishop has, by reason of the premises, shown sufficient 
cause; that consequently he is entitled to be dismissed, and must 
be dismissed, according to the usual course, with costs." 1 

Of course Mr. Gorham appealed against this judgment 
to the Judicial Committee of Privy Council, and it was 
well for the Evangelical cause that he did so. The case 
was heard before the Judicial Committee on December IT, 
1849. The proceedings lasted four days. The case of the 
Bishop of Exeter rested on a book which Mr. Gorham 
had published, containing the replies he had given in the 

1 Robertson s Ecclesiastical Reports^ vol. ii. pp. 103, 104. 


Bishop s examination. 1 It is impossible, nor is it necessary, 
to find room here for the very lengthy passages in this 
book relied on by the Bishop to prove that Mr. Gorham 
held unsound doctrine as to Baptismal Regeneration. A 
summary of Mr. Gorham s views on this important subject 
was given by the Judicial Committee in their judgment on 
March 8, 1850, which will serve to supply my readers with 
an idea of what he held, and for holding which he was 
acquitted by the Court. I know the Bishop of Exeter sub 
sequently denied its accuracy, but in this I venture to differ 
from him. Anyhow, it is the teaching which the judgment 
declared was not contrary to the Church of England : 

"The doctrine held by Mr. Gorham," said the Judicial Com 
mittee, "appears to be this that Baptism is a Sacrament generally 
necessary to salvation, but that the grace of regeneration does not 
so necessarily accompany the act of Baptism, that regeneration 
invariably takes place in Baptism; that the grace may be given 
before, in, or after Baptism; that Baptism is an effectual sign of 
grace, by which God works invisibly in us, but only in such as 
worthily receive it in them alone it has a wholesome effect; and 
that, without reference to the qualification of the recipient, it is not 
in itself an effectual sign of grace. That infants baptized, and 
dying before actual sin, are certainly saved ; but that in no case is 
regeneration in Baptism unconditional. 

" These being," continued their lordships, " as we collect them, 
the opinions of Mr. Gorham, the question which we have to decide 
is, not whether they are theologically sound or unsound not whether 
upon some of the doctrines comprised in the opinions, other opinions 
opposite to them may or may not be held with equal or even greater 
reason by other learned and pious Ministers of the Church ; but 
whether these opinions now under our consideration are contrary or 
repugnant to the doctrines which the Church of England, by its 
Articles, Formularies, and Rubrics, requires to be held by its Mini 
sters, so that upon the ground of those opinions the appellant can 
lawfully be excluded from the benefice to which he has been pre 
sented." 2 

The judgment entered at great length into the argu- 

1 Examination before Admission to a Benefice by the Bishop of Exeter. By 
the Clerk Examined, George Cornelius Gorham, B.D., pp. xlvii., 230. London: 
Hatchard & Son. 1848. 

2 Brodrick and Freemantle s/wrt^w<?/j of the Judicial Committee of the Privy 
Council, p. 89. 


ments which had been brought forward in the case both 
for and against Mr. Gorham. It will be sufficient for my 
purpose to give from it the following extracts : 

"The Services abound with expressions- which must be construed 
in a charitable and qualified sense, and cannot with any appearance 
of reason be taken as proofs of doctrine. Our principal attention 
has been given to the Baptismal Services ; and those who are strongly 
impressed with the earnest prayers which are offered for the Divine 
blessing, and the grace of God, may not unreasonably suppose that 
the grace is not necessarily tied to the rite ; but that it ought to be 
earnestly and devoutly prayed for, in order that it may then, or when 
God pleases, be present to make the rite beneficial." l 

"This Court, constituted for the purpose of advising her Majesty 
in matters which come within its competency, has no jurisdiction 
or authority to settle matters of faith, or to determine what ought in 
any particular to be the doctrine of the Church of England. Its 
duty extends only to the consideration of that which is by law estab 
lished to be the doctrine of the Church of England, upon the true 
and legal construction of her Articles and Formularies ; and we con 
sider that it is not the duty of any Court to be minute and rigid in 
cases of this sort. We agree with Sir William Scott in the opinion 
which he expressed in Stone s case, in the Consistory Court of 
London That if any Article is really a subject of dubious inter 
pretation, it would be highly improper that this Court should fix on 
one meaning, and prosecute all those who hold a contrary opinion 
regarding its interpretation. 

" In the examination of this case, we have not relied on the 
doctrinal opinions of any of the eminent writers, by whose piety, 
learning, and ability the Church of England has been distinguished; 
but it appears that opinions, which we cannot in any important 
particular distinguish from those entertained by Mr. Gorham, have 
been propounded and maintained, without censure or reproach, by 
many eminent and illustrious prelates and divines who have adorned 
the Church from the time when the Articles were first established. 
We do not affirm that the doctrines and opinions of Jewel, Hooker, 
Usher, Jeremy Taylor, Whitgift, Pearson, Carlton, Prideaux, and 
many others, can be received as evidence of the doctrine of the 
Church of England ; but their conduct, unblamed and unquestioned 
as it was, proves, at least, the liberty which has been allowed of 
maintaining such doctrine." 2 

1 Brodrick and Freem&nile sjttdgments of the Judicial Committee of the Privy 
Council, p. 101. 2 Ibid. pp. 102, 103. 


" His Honour the Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce, dissents from 
our judgment, but all the other members of the Judicial Committee, 
who were present at the hearing of the case (those who are now 
present, and Baron Parke, who is unavoidably absent on circuit), are 
unanimously agreed in opinion; and the judgment of their lordships 
is, that the doctrine held by Mr. Gorham is not contrary, or repug 
nant to the declared doctrine of the Church of England as by law 
established, and that Mr. Gorham ought not, by reason of the 
doctrine held by him, to have been refused admission to the Vicar 
age of Brampford Speke." 1 

Of the three Episcopal Assessors in the case, two agreed 
with the judgment (the Archbishops of Canterbury and 
York), and one dissented from it the Bishop of London. 
Amongst those who were in Court during the delivery 
of this important judgment were Baron Bunsen and 
Cardinal Wiseman. The former sent his son, on the 
same day, an account of the proceedings, from which 
I take the following interesting extract : "I am this 
moment come from the Privy Council, and have heard 
the most remarkable judgment pronounced, which since 
the Reformation and the Civil Wars has ever been given 
in this country on a great point of faith. ... I sat on 
the Privy Council seats, behind the right hand side of the 
judges, along with Dr. Wiseman ! Going out I met W. 
Goode (the protagonist of the Evangelicals), with whom 
I shook hands, and who was blissful ; then my way was 
stopped in the lobby by two persons and who were they ? 
Archdeacon Wilberforce and Hope. They drooped their 
heads, and after some silence, going on and I following 
them, Archdeacon W. said, Well, at least, there is no 
mistake about it. In which I heartily concur." 2 

The immediate effect of the judgment on Archdeacon 
Manning and his friends was related by him many years 
later, when he was a Roman Cardinal : 

" I remember well," he said, " I was in London when it was 
given. I went at once to Gladstone, who then lived in Carlton 
Terrace. He was ill with influenza and in bed ; I sat down by 
his bedside and told him of the judgment. Starting up and 

1 Brodrick and Freemantle s /wd^v;? <?/.$ of the Judicial Committee of the Privy 
Council, p. 105. 2 Memoirs of Baron Bunsen, vol. ii. pp. 245, 246. 


throwing out his arms, he exclaimed : The Church of England 
has gone unless it releases itself by some authoritative act. We 
then agreed to draw up a Declaration and get it signed. For this 
purpose we met in the vestry of St. Paul s, Knightsbridge. There 
were present Bennett, Hope, Richard Cavendish, Gladstone, and Dr. 
Mill, I think, and some others. They made me preside. We agreed 
to a string of propositions, deducing that, by the Gorham judgment, 
the Church of England had forfeited its authority as a divine 
teacher. The next time we met, Pusey and Keble, I think, were 
there. They refused this, and got it changed to If the Church of 
England shall accept this judgment it would forfeit its authority as a 
divine teacher. This amendment was accepted because it did not 
say whether the Church of England had or had not de facto accepted 
the judgment. Hope said : * I suppose we are all agreed that if 
the Church of England does not undo this we must join the Church 
of Rome. This made an outcry; and I think it was then that 
Keble said : { If the Church of England were to fail, it should be 
found in my parish. " 1 

The Declaration to which Cardinal Manning refers was, 
of course, a strong protest against the judgment. It con 
sisted of nine clauses, of which the fifth, sixth, and seventh 
were as follows : 

"5. That, inasmuch as the faith is one, and rests upon one principle 
of authority, the conscious, deliberate, and wilful abandonment of 
the essential meaning of an article of the Creed destroys the Divine 
foundation upon which alone the entire faith is propounded by the 

" 6. That any portion of the Church which does so abandon the 
essential meaning of an article, forfeits, not only the Catholic 
doctrine in that article, but also the office and authority to witness 
and teach as a member of the Universal Church. 

" 7. That by such conscious, wilful, and deliberate act such 
portion of the Church becomes formally separated from the Catholic 
body, and can no longer assure to its members the grace of the 
Sacraments and the remission of sins." 2 

Those who signed this Declaration had not long to wait 
before they discovered that the Church of England tacitly 
accepted a judgment which, according to the Declaration, 

1 Life of Cardinal Manning^ vol. i. p. 5 2 ^- 

* Ibid. p. 532. Life of Dr. Pusey^ vol. iii. pp. 240, 241. 


" formally separated her from the Catholic body/ and made 
her no longer able "to assure to its members the grace of 
the Sacraments and the remission of sins." Of course there 
were protests against the judgment in abundance, but, in 
her official character, who can doubt that the Church of 
England has practically accepted the Gorham judgment ? 
Has any Bishop since its delivery dared to refuse institution 
to a clergyman on the ground that he held Mr. Gorham s 
views as to Baptismal Regeneration ? To be consistent, 
every one of the fourteen gentlemen who signed the Declara 
tion ought, after a reasonable interval, to have seceded to 
Rome. Six of the number certainly saw the inconsistency 
of their position, after signing such a document, in remain 
ing in the Church of England for any lengthy period, and 
therefore they seceded to the Church of Rome. Those who 
seceded were, Archdeacon Manning, Archdeacon Robert ]. 
Wilberforce, the Rev. W. Dodsworth, the Rev. Henry Wil 
liam Wilberforce, Mr. Edward Badeley, and Mr. James Hope 
(afterwards Hope-Scott). Those who signed, but remained 
in the Church of England, were, Archdeacon Thomas Thorp, 
Dr. Pusey, Dr. Mill, the Rev. John Keble, the Rev. William 
J. E. Bennett, Mr. John C. Talbot, Mr. Richard Cavendish, 
and the Rev. (afterwards Archdeacon) George Anthony 

There had been a steady stream of secessions to Rome 
from the ranks of the Puseyites ever since 1841, but after 
the delivery of the Gorham judgment the stream became 
for a time something like a flood. A list of the names of the 
seceders may be read in Browne s Annals of the Tractarian 
Movement, and in Gorman s Converts to Rome. 

Of course, before the delivery of the judgment, there had 
been many anxious discussions amongst the Puseyites as to 
what they should do when it was delivered. One proposal 
found great favour, and was warmly welcomed by Pusey 
and Keble. It was nothing less than to prosecute Mr. Gor 
ham for heresy ! On February 19, 1850, Keble wrote to 
Pusey : " I still find myself driven back to the notion of 
prosecuting him \_Gorham~\forheresy ; which, however, I fear 
is not practical, as you say no more of it, and Coleridge 


does not answer my questions about it." 1 Canon Liddon 
tells us that : " Pusey acquiesced in Keble s proposal for a 
prosecution of Mr. Gorham for heresy, and suggested this 
course to the Bishop." 2 On February 23, 1850, Keble again 
wrote to Pusey on the subject : " I am ashamed to say 
nothing has been done yet about the prosecution for heresy. 
I will try and write to Badeley by next post. I did not 
know till last night that you consented to that step." 3 No 
member of the Church Association has ever been more 
anxious to prosecute law-breakers than Pusey and Keble 
were, at this time, to prosecute the Evangelical Mr. Gorham. 
But, alas for their hopes ! " Mr. Badeley," says Canon 
Liddon, " thought it impossible at the time to prosecute 
Mr. Gorham for heresy." 4 No doubt, if it had been pos 
sible, poor Mr. Gorham would have been prosecuted, and 
the Evangelicals, as a consequence, would have been ban 
ished from the Church of England. Had such a result 
followed such a prosecution, we should never have heard 
one word from modern Ritualists about the supposed 
wickedness of ecclesiastical prosecutions. 

And what effect had the Gorham judgment on the Bishop 
of Exeter ? The Judicial Committee of Privy Council did 
not order him to institute Mr. Gorham, or, possibly, he 
might have been sent to prison for contempt. It remitted 
the case to the Court of Arches, and the Dean of Arches, 
acting for the Archbishop of Canterbury, instituted Mr. 
Gorham to the Rectory of Brampford Speke, notwithstand 
ing the opposition of the Bishop of Exeter. It was a sore 
point with the Bishop that the Dean should act, in this 
capacity, as the representative of the Archbishop of Canter 
bury. So, before the actual institution took place, Dr. 
Phillpotts wrote, and published as a pamphlet, a not very 
respectful Letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, concluding 
with the following strong protest : 

" I have one most painful duty to perform. I have to protest 
not only against the judgment pronounced in the recent cause, but 
also against the regular consequences of that judgment. I have to 

1 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. iii. p. 223. 2 Ibid. p. 223. 

8 Ibid. p. 226. 4 Ibid. p. 227. 


protest against your Grace s doing what you will be speedily called 
to do, either in person, or by some other exercising your authority. 
I have to protest, and I do hereby solemnly protest, before the 
Church of England, before the Holy Catholic Church, before Him 
who is its Divine Head, against your giving mission to exercise cure 
of souls, within my diocese, to a clergyman who proclaims him 
self to hold the heresies which Mr. Gorham holds. I protest that 
any one who gives mission to him till he retract, is a favourer and 
supporter of these heresies. I protest, in conclusion, that I cannot 
without sin and by God s grace I will not hold communion with 
him, be he who he may, who shall so abuse the high commission 
which he bears." l 

The Rev. William Goode replied to the Bishop of Exeter 
in a forcible and well-written pamphlet of 107 pages. On 
the passage from that prelate s letter which I have just cited, 
Mr. Goode remarked : 

" My Lord, if by these words you mean that you are about to 
retire to a more suitable communion than the Church of England, 
be it so. You will not ask us to lament your departure. Nor shall 
you hear from me words of exultation or insult. Or if you mean 
that you will withdraw from the Primate the light of your presence, 
and the blessing of your communion and * affectionate friendship/ 
why then, my Lord, if you have really made up your mind so it 
must be. And I will only hope that his Grace may be enabled to 
bear the deprivation with equanimity. 

" But if you mean, what your words appear to mean, that, re 
taining your position in this Church and country as the Bishop of 
Exeter, you will set at defiance your Primate and your Sovereign; 
that you will place yourself in a state of open rebellion against the 
laws of your country ; then, my Lord, I leave you, without fear, to 
reap the due reward of broken vows and violated oaths ; feeling well 
assured that the majesty of the law will obtain as easy a triumph 
over Devonshire and Cornish rebels now, as it did three centuries 
ago." 2 

Any one reading the pamphlet of the Bishop of Exeter 
must admit that he had the courage of his convictions. It 
was, indeed, a daring thing to do to practically excom- 

1 A Letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury. By the Bishop of Exeter, p. 90. 
London : John Murray. 1850. 

2 A Letter to the Bishop of Exeter. By William Goode, M.A., p. 97, 3rd 
edition. London : Hatchard & Son. 1850. 


municate his own Primate. But he went further, and tried 
to blacken Mr. Gorham s theological character in the eyes 
of his new parishioners at Brampford Speke, by a published 
letter to the Churchwardens of that parish. In this docu 
ment Dr. Phillpotts most unjustly affirmed that "truths on 
which the whole teaching of the Church rests" "were 
directly contradicted by your new Vicar in his examination 
before me, his Bishop." l The Churchwardens were assured 
that : " You have already too strong reason to apprehend 
that your new Vicar may endeavour to spread the poison of 
heresy among his people"; 2 and that Mr. Gorham was 
" one who himself believes not the saving truths which he 
has undertaken to teach." 3 The Churchwardens were 
exhorted to act as spies on their Vicar s preaching, and if 
he taught from the pulpit anything contrary to the Bishop s 
view of Baptismal Regeneration, they were to make a note 
of his words, and send them to the Archdeacon, in order that 
they might be dealt with by the Bishop. In that case the 
Bishop promised to prosecute Mr. Gorham for heresy. 

Now there can be no question that a letter like this was 
well calculated to stir up the parishioners of Brampford 
Speke against their new Vicar. It certainly was not a case 
of trying to pour oil on the troubled waters. And, more 
over, it was in defiance of the law. The next step taken by 
the Bishop was to convoke what he termed a "Synod" of 
his clergy, mainly to consider this question of Baptismal 
Regeneration. His lordship, however, did not invite all of 
the clergy to take part in it ; had he done so the proceedings 
would not have passed off as smoothly as he desired. So 
he invited the clergy of every Rural Deanery to elect two 
only of their Deanery as their representatives ; and to these 
were added the Dean of Exeter and the Greater Chapter, 
the Bishop s Chaplains, and the officials of the Archdeacons. 4 
The laity were left out altogether. Had they been admitted 
the Bishop knew very well that he would have had a very 
disagreeable time in the Synod. The Synod met on June 

1 A Letter to the Churchwardens of Brampford Speke. By the Bishop of 
Exeter, p. 10, 2nd edition. London : John Murray. 1850. 

2 Ibid. p. 14. 8 Ibid. p. 15. 

4 Acts of the Synod of Exeter, p. I. London : John Murray. 1851. 


25, 1851, and the proceedings lasted three days ; but a por 
tion of the second day only was devoted to the real object for 
which it was convened. Now there was not a man at that 
Synod who did not know very well that, were he to get up 
and speak against the Declaration on Baptism submitted to 
it, he would be a marked man by the Bishop from that day 
out. The names of those who were present were not printed 
in the official report of the proceedings subsequently issued 
" By Authority," and therefore I cannot tell whether there 
were any Evangelical clergymen in the Synod. If they 
were there they ought to have spoken out, and voted against 
the Declaration, which was so strongly on the side of the 
Bishop s views as to Baptismal Regeneration that, when it 
was declared carried unanimously, the Bishop exclaimed : 
"Thank God for this : let His Holy Name be praised." l 

One result of the Gorham Case was the publication of 
two important books on Baptismal Regeneration. One, 
published in 1862, was entitled, A Review of the Baptismal 
Controversy, and was written by the Rev. ]. B. Mozley, a 
High Churchman, and subsequently Regius Professor of 
Divinity in the University of Oxford. The object of this 
work is thus explained by its learned author in his preface: 
" I have, however, in the present treatise, confined myself 
to two positions : one, that the doctrine of the regeneration 
of all infants in Baptism is not an article of the faith ; the 
other, that the formularies of our Church do not impose it." 
The other work, published in 1849, while the Gorham Case 
was still undecided, was written by the Rev. William Goode, 
and bore the title of The Doctrine of the Church of England 
as to the Effects of Baptism. I would strongly recommend 
both of these valuable and important works to the Evan 
gelical clergy and laity, and also to those who wish to know 
what can be said in support of the Gorham judgment. The 
Baptismal Regeneration controversy is not studied now as 
much as in former years, and yet it is needed now more 
than ever. Its importance for Evangelical Churchmen 
cannot be over-estimated. 

Coming back to the year 1849 we Bnd the Bishop of 

1 Acts of the Synod of Exeter > p. 57. 


Oxford endeavouring to exercise Episcopal discipline over 
one of his Romanising clergymen the Rev. T. W. Allies, 
Rector of Launton, Oxon. This case shows how audacious 
some of the clergy had already become in their march to 
Rome. Several years before this, while officiating for the 
Rev. W. ]. Bennett, that gentleman had given Mr. Allies a 
copy of the Roman Missal, and ever since his Romeward 
sympathies had developed rapidly. In 1840 Mr. Allies was 
appointed Chaplain to Dr. Blomfield, Bishop of London, 
an office which he held until June 1842. Soon after he 
became Rector of Launton. We learn from Mr. Allies 
autobiography that early in 1844 he had come to the con 
clusion " that post-Baptismal sin required Sacramental Con 
fession and Absolution." l He fitted up his Church with 
open oak pews. It was reopened on September i, 1844. 
"Before that time," says Mr. Allies, "all my trust in Angli 
canism was gone" 2 And yet he remained officiating within 
the Anglican Church, as one of her clergy, for seven years 
and a half afterwards ! How he could do it with a comfort 
able conscience is indeed a mystery. On February 12, 1845, 
he wrote in his diary : " Since my last birthday one very 
important change of view has developed itself a secret 
and yet undefined dread that we are in a state of schism." 3 
He wrote a book in 1846 entitled The Church of England 
Cleared from the Charge of Schism, of which he brought out 
a second edition in February, 1848 ; and this is how he 
describes its publication: "I had become, both practically 
and theoretically, more and more disgusted with the Angli 
can Church, more and more struck with what I saw of the 
action and conduct of the Catholic Church abroad. And 
so it came to pass, that I was publishing the second edition 
of a book, written in the utmost good faith, with daily 
prayers for enlightenment, in ostensible defence of a com 
munion which I thoroughly hated . 4 It must have required an 
immense quantity of Jesuitical casuistry to have enabled 
him to continue ministering for two and a half years more 

1 A Life s Decision. By T. W. Allies, p. 50, 2nd edition. London : Burns 
and Oates. 1894. 

2 Ibid. p. 51. 3 Ibid. p. 53. 
4 Ibid. p. 115. 


in a communion which he "thoroughly hated." What 
part had any sense of truth and honour in such conduct ? 
Early in 1849 Mr. Allies published his Journal in France! 
On February i9th he wrote in his diary : " Received to-day 
the first copies of my Journal in France. I went into the 
garden and read the whole conclusion. The publishing 
this book gave me great gratification. It so exactly sets forth 
my mind ; it pays a debt which I seemed to owe to the Roman 
Church ; " and again, on the following day, he wrote in the 
same diary, with reference to this book : " I seem to have 
discharged a sacred debt to the Roman Church." 2 The 
Rev. Charles Marriott, writing from Oriel College, on Easter 
Monday 1849, to thank. Allies for a copy of the book, said 
that, in what he had written about Invocation of Saints, 
" so far you have exercised a laudable subtlety." 3 There 
can be no doubt about the " subtlety," but I do not believe 
that it was " laudable" Almost everything in Romanism 
was held up by Mr. Allies to admiration in this book. The 
following extracts from it will give some idea of how far 
its author had gone towards Rome : 

"Most intimately connected with the dogma of the Incar 
nation, and its symbol, the Real Presence, is that of the Inter 
cession of all Saints, especially of the Blessed Mother of God ; nay, 
this may be said to be the continuation and carrying out of the Real 
Presence, so that wherever that is truly and heartfully believed, this 
will be, within due bounds, cherished and practised." 4 

"And may not we ask you, who dwell in sight of the Eternal 
Throne, but who once, like ourselves, bore the burden and heat of the 
day in this earthly wilderness, may we not ask you to turn your 
regards on us, to intercede for us before Him, whose members ye 
are in glory, and we in trial ? " 5 

" Christ is present in His Church, for the Priest in the tribunal 
of penitence is as God himself." 6 

" Among minor things, which yet we have suffered loss and harm 

1 Journal in France in 1845 an( l 1848. By Thomas William Allies, M.A., 
Rector of Launton, pp. xii. 388. 
~ A Life s Decision, p. 125. 

3 Ibid. p. 148. 

4 Allies Journal in France, p. 334. 

6 Ibid. p. 335. 6 Ibid, p, 338. 



in giving up, may be reckoned the custom of crossing with Holy 
Water on entering a Church." l 

" A still more to be regretted omission is that of the Crucifix, 
which might, with much edification, appear prominently at least in 
one part of the Church, over the Rood Screen or over the altar." 2 

" If the Anglo-German race be ever restored to the communion 
of the Latin Church, as I fervently pray that mercy may be reserved 
for them by God." 8 

The Bishop of Oxford read the book soon after its 
publication, and gave his opinion of it in the most em 
phatic terms on March 8th. "It is," he declared, "the 
most undisguised, unblushing preference for Rome I 
almost ever read." 4 Nine days later he wrote to the 
author of the book, calling his attention to the variance 
which existed " between its language and the dogmatic 
teachings of the Church of England ; " and adding that 
no particular extracts could " fully exhibit this contra 
diction, because the general tone " of the book was " more 
at variance with the teaching of our Church " than any 
particular extracts. His language concerning the Mass 
contradicted the explicit teaching of Article XXVIII. The 
tone of the book towards the Church of England was 
" deprecating, and even insulting/ while it contained 
" unbounded eulogies of the Papal system." The Bishop 
enclosed a set of extracts from the book, and called on 
Mr. Allies for an explanation or an unqualified retractation. 5 
The author s reply was not considered satisfactory, and 
therefore the Bishop wrote to him again on March 24th, 
pointing out that he had not replied to his chief objections 
against the book : " The part of my communication," 
wrote Dr. Wilberforce, "which needed the most direct 
reply you have left almost untouched, under the allegation 
that my letter closes with a threat. I think that if you 
look again at it, you will perceive that it contains nothing 
but a declaration that if you cannot show that your state 
ments do not contradict the Articles, and will not retract 
them, I shall appeal to your own conscience as to whether 

1 Allies Journal in France, p. 340. 2 Ibid. p. 340. 

8 Ibid. p. 344. 

4 Life of Bishop Wilberforce, vol. ii. p. 17. 6 Ibid. pp. 17, 18. 


it is honest to maintain your position as a paid teacher of 
doctrines you formally deny." l 

The case of Mr. Allies worried the Bishop not a little. 
" I have great trouble with Mr. Allies," he wrote to his 
sister-in-law ; " he has given me most evasive answers to 
the questions I have been obliged to put to him. He 
wishes to make out that he may hold all Roman doctrine, 
except the Pope s Supremacy, and remain with us. I am 
now taking an opinion whether his words make his meaning 
plain enough for me to proceed in the Courts against 
him." 2 The legal opinion referred to in this letter was 
given to the Bishop a week later by the well-known 
ecclesiastical lawyer, Dr. Lushington. He said that he 
was satisfied that " a prosecution would be attended with 
success." There were evils in such prosecutions, but it 
would in this case be a greater evil not to prosecute. The 
Bishop decided to send the case to the Court of Arches, 
but at the last moment Baron Alderson persuaded him 
not to do so, on the ground that a lawsuit would tend 
to a schism in the Church, while the tendencies of the 
Romanisers would " die out if judiciously left alone " 
an opinion which the results have not justified. The 
Baron s appeal was backed up by a letter from his friend, 
Mr. Allies, addressed to the Bishop, in which he expressed 
regret that anything in his book " should appear to my 
Diocesan to be contrary to the Articles of the Church of 
England, or calculated to depreciate that Church in com 
parison with the Church of Rome ; and I undertake not to 
publish a second edition of the work. I declare my ad 
herence to the Articles in their plain, literal, and gram 
matical sense, and will not preach or teach anything 
contrary to such Articles in their plain, literal, and gram 
matical sense." 8 This, be it observed, was not an acknow 
ledgment that he had written anything in his book 
contrary to the Articles, but that he was sorry the 
Bishop should think so. It was very wrong of Bishop 
Wilberforce to yield to the advice of Allies friends in 
withdrawing the prosecution, and it was not long before 

1 Life of Bishop Wilberforce, p, 19. 

* Ibid. p. 20. *Ibid. p. 26. 


he had cause to regret his decision. In his old age, 
writing as a Roman Catholic, Mr. Allies frankly acknow 
ledges : " Simply taking the passages in my Journal 
quoted by the Bishop, they certainly appear to me irrecon 
cilable with the letter, and still more with the spirit, of 
the Anglican Articles ; " 1 and, he adds, that he has " no 
doubt whatever that he [the Bishop] would have got a 
judgment against me." 2 

On July 26, 1849, Mr. Allies, accompanied by a friend, 
started on a journey to Rome. Writing as a Roman 
Catholic he says : " It was quite necessary for my health 
and spirits to seek for a time a total change of scene, and I 
could think of nothing so attractive as a visit to Rome, and 
especially to the Pope. ... I felt that I had not a shred to 
love in Anglicanism, yet all the while the speculative diffi 
culty on the side of the Roman Supremacy remained." 3 
Of course while at Rome he had an interview with Pope 
Pius IX., who seems to have had a great admiration for Dr. 
Pusey. His opinion of that divine, as given by Mr. Allies 
in his report of this interview, is very interesting : 

" Then he asked after Dr. Pusey. He has done] said the Pope, 
much good; HE HAS OPENED THE DOOR; he has set before his 
countrymen the principle of authority, which is the first thing in 
religion ; he has prepared the way for Catholicism?"^ 

So much for Dr. Pusey. And this is what Mr. Allies 
told the Pope about himself, and some of his Puseyite 
friends he had left behind in England : " I consider it a 
blessing to have the opportunity of expressing personally to 
your Holiness, that some ecclesiastics at least amongst us 
I may say, several deeply feel how great a calamity it has 
been to England, and to the whole British realm, that sJie has 
been separated from the Holy See. They ardently desire her 
reunion with it." Mr. Allies adds that the Pope " expressed 
his joy at this. I asked if he would give us his blessing, 
That I will do with all my heart, he replied, and I will 
pray for you, and for your friends, and for all England. 
He also, at our request, blessed two Crucifixes which I held 

1 A Life s Decision, p. 197. 2 Ibid. p. 198. 

3 Ibid. p. 199. 4 Ibid. p. 203. 


in my hand, and also those in Wynne s ; he seemed merely 
to touch them. We then knelt, and he pronounced the 
blessing." 1 And all the while this man, thus kneeling before 
the Pope, humbly seeking his blessing for himself and his 
crucifixes, was professedly a clergyman of the Church of 
England, receiving her pay, and bound to her by oaths of 
allegiance ! Truly there are many crooked things in the 
History of the Homeward Movement ! " I then," writes 
Mr. Allies, " returned by sea to Marseilles, leaving Wynne 
at Genoa, and on Thursday, September i3th, was again in 
England, and carrying about with me the Popes present as a 
safeguard against all evil." 2 He must, indeed, have fallen 
deep into the mire of superstition ere he could have believed 
that the Pope s present would defend him " against all 
evil ! " A year later, on September 8, 1850, Allies announced 
his resignation of the living of Launton, and the day after 
he was received into the Church of Rome by Newman. 

A few weeks before his secession, Mr. Allies joined two 
of his friends, the Revs. W. Dodsworth and W. Maskell, in 
sending to Dr. Pusey a joint letter on the subject of Auri 
cular Confession, which greatly disturbed the latter gentle 
man : 

"We wish," these gentlemen wrote to Pusey, "to put you a 
question on a point nearly concerning our own peace of mind, and 
that of others. It is this What authority is there for supposing 
that the acts of a priest are valid who hears Confessions, and gives 
Absolution, in mere virtue of his orders, without ordinary or delegated 
jurisdiction from his Bishop ? We believe it to be the undisputed law 
of the Church that acts flowing from Order, though done wrongly 
and illicitly, are yet, when done, valid ; the reason of which is, that 
the power of Order, being given by consecration and indelible, can 
not be taken away : but that acts flowing from Jurisdiction, if done 
upon those over whom the doer has no Jurisdiction, are absolutely 
invalid and null" 3 

" But what we wish to know is, whether there be any authority 
for considering valid the Absolution of a priest, who has neither 

1 A Life s Decision, p. 203. 2 Ibid. p. 206. 

3 A Letter to the Rev. Dr. Pusey On His Practice of Receiving Persons in 
Auricular Confessions. By William Maskell, M.A., pp.8, 9. London : William 
Pickering. 1850. 


received such ordinary Jurisdiction in the cure of souls, nor such 
delegated Jurisdiction, or, again, who, having the cure of souls, ab 
solves not only his own parishioners, but others also, without licence 
from their own parish priest or Bishop." 1 

" It would certainly follow from all this, as it seems to us, that the 
authority which for some time past has been exercised by some among 
us, and especially by yourself, not only in our own dioceses, but in 
other dioceses often without the knowledge, and probably (were it 
known) it would be against the consent, of both the parish priest and 
Bishop has not been based upon true and sufficient foundation : 
nay more, has been (however ignorantly) in opposition to Catholic 
rules from the first ages to the present time. And further a point 
to which we allude with reluctance and sorrow it would follow like 
wise that the vast majority of those persons, to whom you and others 
have given Absolution in this manner, are still, so far as the effect 
of any such Absolutions is concerned, under the chain of their sins, 
because they have not made Confession to priests who had duly 
received power to absolve them. Hence, we cannot suppose that 
you will be surprised that we should earnestly desire from you an 
elucidation of this matter." 2 

This letter seems to have disturbed Pusey very much. 
He complained of its tone, and especially of its refer 
ence to his own practice a very delicate point and he 
asked the writers to alter, before publication, the wording 
of their letter. This, however, they declined to do, and 
pressed for an answer. Of course they had put to him a 
very difficult and awkward question. He had been wander 
ing about the country especially in Devonshire hearing 
Confessions on the sly, as Mr. Maskell pointed out to him 
later on. If he could have produced Episcopal leave for 
hearing these Confessions, and also the leave of the In 
cumbents of those parishes where he had heard them, he 
would have had an answer at hand, which must have satis 
fied Messrs. Maskell, Allies, and Dodsworth, so far, at least, 
as his own practice was concerned. But as he could not 
do this, he wrote and published a large volume of 312 
pages, the title of which really was his answer to the 

1 Maskell s Letter to the Rev. Dr. Pusey On His Practice of Receiving Persons 
in Auricular Confessions, p. 10. 

2 Ibid. pp. 13, 14. 


questions put to him : The Church of England Leaves 
Her Children Free to W/iom to Open Their Griefs. Ever 
since then the Ritualistic Father Confessors seem to have 
acted on the principle laid down by Dr. Pusey in justifica 
tion of his own practice. The controversy over Jurisdiction 
has very little, if any, practical interest to Protestant 
Churchmen, who never need to practise Auricular Con 
fession to human priests, having a much better Confessional 
to resort to, in which the Great High Priest sits to hear 
Confessions and give His all-satisfying Absolution ; but 
this correspondence is important to them for this reason. 
The controversy led to an exposure of Pusey s practice, 
which was most useful in opening the eyes of Englishmen 
to the thoroughly Romish character of Auricular Con 
fession, as conducted by the leader of the Puseyites. I 
quote these exposures with confidence, since Pusey was 
unable to contradict any one of the charges brought 
against him, excepting only that which affirmed that he 
had "enjoined" Confession on his penitents. I should 
here mention that Messrs. Maskell, Allies, and Dods- 
worth seceded to Rome soon after their united letter to 
Pusey. As to Pusey s denial of having "enjoined" Auri 
cular Confession, Mr. Maskell wrote to him : 

" In p. 6 of your letter to Mr. Richards, you blame Mr. Dods- 
worth for having said in his published letter to you, that you have 
* enjoined Auricular Confession; and you say that you could not 
enjoin Auricular Confession. Suffer me to say, that, in connection 
with the other words of the same sentence, Mr. Dodsworth s use of 
the word enjoin was just and reasonable. He does not use it simply, 
and without limitation ; he says that you have encouraged, if not 
enjoined, Auricular Confession : by which it is evident that, in the 
sense of compulsion, he knew, as well as yourself, you could not 
possibly enjoin Auricular Confession. And he knew also, as I 
know, that to say merely that you have encouraged it, would fall as 
far short of what your actual practice is, as the word enjoin, in the 
sense of compelling, would exceed it. He knew that you had done 
more than encouraged Confession in very many cases ; that you have 
warned people of the danger of deferring it, have insisted on if as 
the only remedy, have pointed out the inevitable dangers of the 
neglect of it, and have promised the highest blessings in the 


observance, until you had brought penitents in fear and trembling 
upon their knees before you" J 

"To conclude, in hearing Auricular Confessions, in giving 
Absolution, and in assuring those who come to you that the grace 
which they so receive by your ministry is Sacramental, and effective 
of the removal of the guilt of mortal sin in thus speaking and thus 
acting, you cannot have any other guide, or authority, or teacher, 
than the [Roman] Catholic Church. To her documents, canons, and 
decisions, and to the voice of her theologians in their books upon 
the subject, you must and do refer. Whatsoever you hold upon this 
great Christian Sacrament is derived from that source, and from 
that source alone; and if this be so, as regards your theory of 
Absolution, much more is it as regards your practice in hearing 
Auricular Confessions. I shall not enter into this last point. It 
would give you as well as myself sorrow to be obliged to do so. 
All that need be said is that THE RULES OF THE CHURCH OF 


In the following year Mr. Dodsworth published two or 
three more controversial pamphlets. In one of these he 
said : 

" I knew, what was also known to hundreds of other persons, that 
clergymen of the Established Church (I myself was one) were in 
the habit of doing what is here described ; that is, of receiving Con 
fessions, both from men and women, of their whole lives, in details 
as minute as any that Ian possibly be made to a Catholic Priest ; of 
enjoining penance, and giving Priestly Absolution. Dr. Pusey (I 
mention it to his honour), was one of the foremost to commend the 
restoration of this salutary practice, both by precept and example. 
He was the first Anglican clergyman who spoke to me of its revival 
in the Established Church, and I know of many persons whom he 
has led into the practice. With regard to what English Protestants 
most object to the minute details of sins in Confession it is only 
right to say, so far as I know, that Confession is required to be at 
least quite as minute, where observed in the Established Church, as 
it is in the Catholic Church." 3 

The Revs. W. Maskell, W. Dodsworth, and T. W. Allies 
had been for years the friends of Dr. Pusey, and were 
intimately acquainted with the inner working of the Rome- 

1 Maskell s Letter to the Rev. Dr. Pusey On His Practice of Receiving Persons 
in Auricular Confessions, pp. 17, 18. 2 Ibid. p. 50. 

2 A Few Comments on Dr. Pusey s Letter to the Bishop of London. By 
William Dodsworth, M.A., pp. 5, 6. London: William Pickering. 1851. 


ward Movement in the Church of England. They testified 
to that which they knew, and therefore their testimony not 
having been since contradicted on any material point is of 
great importance, as proving, beyond the possibility of a 
doubt, the thoroughly Romish character of the Confessional 
as worked by Dr. Pusey. It was to them, as it has always 
been, a great instrument of priestly power ; and as we have 
seen, it " brought penitents in fear and trembling upon 
their knees " before their spiritual lords and masters. Mr. 
Dodsworth had been Perpetual Curate of Christ Church, St. 
Pancras, and soon after his secession to Rome he addressed 
a published letter to his late congregation, explaining why 
he had left them. In this document he frankly acknowledged 
the great assistance the Oxford Movement had already been 
to the Church of Rome. What would he have said of these 
services, had he lived to the year 1900 ? Of "the Oxford 
Movement of 1833 " Mr. Dodsworth said : 

" I think its tendency towards Rome has been very decisive and 
very extensive. Look at the Church of England as it was fifty years 
ago, or even thirty. At that time it would have been thought Popish 
to speak of the Real Presence; the doctrine of the Eucharistic 
Sacrifice was scarcely known in the teaching of the Church. 
Auricular Confession, counsels of perfection, the Conventual Life, 
as well as less important matters, such as the use of the Crucifix, 
&c., were all identified with Popery. But now these doctrines and 
usages are quite current amongst Anglicans. May we not appeal 
to the common-sense of men to say whether these things are not 
a decisive approximation to Romel Nay, more, are not Anglicans 
indebted to Rome for them ? . . . And then, if it be admitted, as 
it must be, that they enter vitally into the truth of our holy religion, 
and have a most decisive influence upon religious practice, must it 
not also be admitted that the revival of these things amongst Angli 
cans is so far a witness in favour of Rome ? " l 

Mr. Dodsworth s exposures of Dr. Pusey s Confessional 
practices brought the latter gentleman into trouble with 
his Diocesan. But it was not his work as a Father Con 
fessor only which brought down on Pusey the censures of 
Bishop Wilberforce. His adapted Roman books, and his 
teaching concerning the Lord s Supper, seemed to the 

1 Anglicanism Considered in Us Results. By William Dodsworth, M.A., 
pp. 91, 92. London: William Pickering. 1851. 


Bishop of Oxford to have a distinct tendency Romeward. 
There was a lengthy correspondence between the Bishop, 
Pusey, and Keble on the subject, which may be read in the 
Life of Bishop Wilberforce, and in the Life of Dr. Pusey. 
Wilberforce considered that Pusey was a "decoy bird" 
who led people into the Papal net, which he had no inten 
tion of entering himself. " I do not mean that he intends 
any such thing ; I am quite sure that he does not." * Still, 
however good Pusey s intentions may have been, the result 
was, in the Bishop s opinion, the same. So at last he had 
to privately inhibit him from officiating in the Diocese of 
Oxford, except in the parish of Pusey, for two years. 
"You seem to me," the Bishop wrote to Pusey, "to be 
habitually assuming the place and doing the work of a 
Roman Confessor, and not that of an English clergyman. 
Now I so firmly believe that of all the curses of Popery this 
is the crowning curse, that I cannot allow voluntarily 
within my charge the continuance of any ministry which 
is infected by it." 2 

The great public excitement connected with the Papal 
Aggression commenced towards the close of 1850, by the 
publication of the Papal Bull dividing England into Dioceses 
to be filled by Bishops of his own choosing. The Pro 
testant opposition to the Pope s action found but little 
support from the Puseyites : several of them, in fact, 
actively opposed it. This attitude is partly accounted for 
by the action of Lord John Russell, the Prime Minister, 
who, in his famous Durham Letter, attacked, not only the 
Pope, but also his imitators in the Church of England. His 
lordship s opinion of the Oxford Movement is thus explained 
by his biographer, Mr. Spencer Walpole : " Lord John 
had always regarded with deep distrust the progress of the 
great religious Movement which is associated with the 
names of Cardinal Newman and Mr. Pusey. Its votaries, 
he thought, were not merely traitors to the Church, but 
guilty of shocking profanation. They were, consciously 
or unconsciously, initiating a Movement which was leading 
to Rome, and they were simultaneously turning a service 

1 Life of Bishop Wilberforce, vol. ii. p. 86. a Ibid. p. 90. 


of remembrance into an offensive spectacle." 1 It is evident 
from this that Lord John Russell ever looked upon Trac- 
tarianism as a Romeward Movement. He feared that 
"nothing but the erection of a priestly supremacy over 
the Crown and people would satisfy the party in the Church 
who now take the lead in agitation." 2 In his letter to the 
Bishop of Durham his lordship said : 

" There is a danger, however, which alarms me much more than 
any aggression of a foreign Sovereign. Clergymen of our own 
Church, who have subscribed the Thirty-Nine Articles and acknow 
ledged in explicit terms the Queen s supremacy, have been most 
forward in leading their flocks step by step to the very verge of the 
precipice. The honour paid to Saints, the claim of Infallibility for 
the Church, the superstitious use of the sign of the Cross, the mut 
tering of the Liturgy so as to disguise the language in which it is 
written, the recommendation of Auricular Confession, and the 
administration of penance and absolution all these things are 
pointed out by clergymen of the Church of England as worthy of 
adoption, and are now openly reprehended by the Bishop of London 
in his Charge to the clergy of his diocese. 

"What then is the danger to be apprehended from a foreign 
prince of no great power, compared to the danger within the gates 
from the unworthy sons of the Church of England herself? 

" I have little hope that the propounders and framers of these 
innovations will desist from their insidious course. But I rely 
with confidence on the people of England ; and I will not bate a jot 
of heart or hope, so long as the glorious principles and the immortal 
Martyrs of the Reformation shall be held in reverence by the great 
mass of a nation which looks with contempt on the mummeries of 
superstition, and with scorn at the laborious endeavours which are 
now making to confine the intellect and enslave the soul." 8 

The words cited in this letter, " step by step to the very 
verge of the precipice/ were a quotation from the Charge 
of the Bishop of London, delivered on November 2nd. In 
that Charge Dr. Blomfield, as a High Churchman, expressed 
his strong disapproval of the Gorham judgment, and ad 
vocated the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration. He then 
went on to make a strong attack on the Puseyite party, who 

1 Life of Lord John Russell. By Spencer Walpole, vol. ii. p. 115. 

2 Ibid. p. 117. 8 Ibid. p. 120. 


he held responsible mainly for the many secessions to 
Rome which had recently taken place : 

"But," said the Bishop, "there is another very important con 
sideration suggested to us by the recent lamentable secessions from 
our Church. It may well occur to us to enquire how far the way 
may have been paved for them, in some instances at least, by the 
growth of opinions and practices in our own Reformed Church, at 
variance, if not with the letter, yet with the spirit, of its teaching 
and ordinances. I am unwilling to condemn, without reserve, the 
motives of those among the clergy who have thought themselves at 
liberty to imitate, as nearly as it is possible to imitate, without a 
positive infringement of the law, the forms and ceremonies of u.e 
Church of Rome. . . . Concessions to error can never really serve 
the cause of truth. If some few have been thus retained within the 
pale of our Church, many others have been gradually trained for 
secession from it. A taste has been excited in them for forms and 
observances which has stimulated without satisfying their appetite, 
and they have naturally sought for fuller gratification in the Church 
of Rome. They have been led, step by step, to the very verge of 
the precipice, and then, to the surprise and disappointment of their 
guides, have fallen over. I know that this has happened in some 
instances. I have no doubt of its having happened in many. 

"Then, with respect to doctrine, what can be better calculated 
to lead the less learned, or the less thoughtful, members of our 
Protestant Church to look with complacency upon the errors which 
their Church has renounced, and at length to embrace them, than 
to have books of devotion put into their hands by their own clergy 
men, in which all but Divine honour is paid to the Virgin Mary ? A 
propitiatory virtue is attributed to the Eucharist the mediation of 
the Saints is spoken of as a probable doctrine Prayer for the Dead 
urged as a positive duty and a superstitious use of the sign of the 
Cross is recommended as profitable : add to this the secret practice 
of Auricular Confession, the use of Crucifixes and Rosaries, the 
administration of what is termed the Sacrament of Penance, and it 
is manifest that they who are taught to believe that such things are 
compatible with the principles of the English Church, must also 
believe it to be separated from that of Rome by a faint and almost 
imperceptible line, and be prepared to pass that line without much 
fear of incurring the guilt of schism. 

" Then with regard to the mode of celebrating Divine worship, 
it has been a subject of great uneasiness to me to see the changes 
which have been introduced by a few of the clergy, at variance, as 


I think, with the spirit of the Church s directions, and, in some 
instances, with the letter. . . . These innovations have, in some 
instances, been carried to such a length as to render the Church 
service almost histrionic. I really cannot characterise by a gentler 
term the continual changes of posture, the frequent genuflexions, the 
crossings, the peculiarities of dress, and some of the decorations of 
Churches to which I allude. They are, after all, a poor imitation of 
the Roman ceremonial, and furnish, I have no doubt, to the obser 
vant members of that Church, a subject, on the one hand, of ridicule, 
as being a faint and meagre copy of their own gaudy ritual ; and, on 
the other hand, of exultation, as preparing those who take delight 
in them to seek a fuller gratification of their taste in the Roman 

In all this the Bishop had only stated the truth. There 
was nothing of exaggeration in his description of what 
was taking place. No doubt he had specially in his mind 
what was going on at the moment in St. Barnabas Church, 
Pimlico, under the Rev. W. J. E. Bennett, Vicar of St. Paul s, 
Knightsbridge, of which St. Barnabas was then a District 
Chapel-of-Ease. From a Farewell Letter to his Parish 
ioners, issued by Mr. Bennett after his resignation of 
St. Paul s, I learn that he was appointed to work in 
the parish in 1840, that he assisted in building the new 
Church of St. Paul s, Knightsbridge, and that not very 
long after complaints as to his mode of conducting 
Divine Service were frequently forwarded to the Bishop 
of London, and many more were made directly to himself. 
" On one occasion," said Mr. Bennett, " a person coming 
from abroad informed me that, for all the world, the 
Church of St. Paul s was nothing more than he had just 
seen at Paris and at Rome. To which I replied, How 
happy it was that members of the Church of England 
could be in any way like the great bulk of Christendom, 
for it seemed like the beginning of unity." J In the year 
1849, during a pestilence in London, Mr. Bennett printed 
and circulated a Form of Prayer, to be used privately, 
containing Prayers for the Dead. The Bishop of London 
wrote to him about it, and strongly objected to such 

1 A Farewell Letter to his Parishioners. By the Rev. W. J. E. Bennett, p. 24. 
London : Cleaver. 1851. 


prayers. A lengthy correspondence followed ; 1 but Mr. 
Bennett, notwithstanding his oath of obedience to his 
Bishop, refused to yield to his clearly expressed wishes. 
On June 10, 1850, the new Chapel-of-Ease, afterwards 
known as St. Barnabas Church, Pimlico, was consecrated 
by the Bishop of London. It was not long before Ritual 
istic practices, which were then thought very advanced, 
were observed in the new Church. One of the Curates, 
finding things going so far wrong, could endure it no 
longer, and went to the Bishop of London with a view 
to his resignation, not to complain of Mr. Bennett, who 
alone was responsible for what went on at St. Barnabas . 
The Bishop, of course, questioned him as to the matters 
he objected to, and having thus learnt what was going 
on, he wrote on July ist to Mr. Bennett, stating that he 
had been informed upon authority he could not doubt, 
that in St. Barnabas Church (i) at Holy Communion he 
celebrated standing in the centre of the west side of the 
table, with his back to the congregation ; (2) that he did 
not give the cup into the hands of the communicants, 
but put it to their lips ; (3) that in some instances he 
had not given the bread into the hands of the communi 
cants, but had put it into their mouths ; (4) that he 
prefaced the sermon with an invocation of the Trinity ; 
(5) that at this invocation before the sermon the clergy 
rose up and crossed themselves ; and (6) that he had 
administered Extreme Unction to a young lady. To 
this letter Mr. Bennett replied on July I5th, denying 
absolutely the last charge, and admitting the truth of 
all the other charges, except that as to not putting the 
elements into the hands of the communicants ; this was, 
he explained, true only of six communicants, and that 
by their special request, but that since receiving his lord 
ship s letter he had spoken to the six, who had agreed 
to give up the practice complained of. Mr. Bennett, at 
some length, defended these practices, but did not promise 
to give up more than the last named, and he said to the 
Bishop : " If you think, upon reading what I have said, 

1 Bennett s Farewell Letter to his Parishioners, pp. 44-61. 


that the picture of my mind is not that which could justify 
my remaining in the cure of souls in your lordship s 
diocese, I am ready and willing to depart." l After writing 
this letter Mr. Bennett says that three months elapsed 
before he received any reply, during which "all the 
practices complained of were continued without varia 
tion." 2 On October i8th the Bishop wrote again, ex 
pressing himself as not at all satisfied with Mr. Bennett s 
explanations and defence, and requiring him to give up 
the practices to which he objected. To this Mr. Bennett 
replied on October 3oth : " It grieves me to say that, 
after having conscientiously considered all the bearings 
of the matter, I find that I am unable to withdraw or 
alter anything that I have said or done," and he offered 
to resign his living if the Bishop called on him to do 
so. 3 Soon after Mr. Bennett presented a young gentle 
man to the Bishop to be ordained to the Curacy of St. 
Barnabas , but his lordship refused to ordain him on Mr. 
Bennett s nomination. The Bishop of London s Charge 
was delivered, as already stated, on November 2nd, con 
demning the Puseyites in strong terms. On November 
5th, Lord John Russell s letter to the Bishop of Durham, 
dated November 4th, was published in the daily papers. 
On Sunday, November loth, riots broke out in St. 
Barnabas Church, which were renewed on the following 
Sunday a method of protest with which, I may be per 
mitted to state, I have no sympathy whatever. It has 
ever been injurious to the Protestant cause, and can only 
benefit the Romanisers. Here were a number of, I sup 
pose, Protestant people, going to Church to protest 
against lawlessness by committing acts of violent lawless 
ness themselves. The principle of taking the law into our 
own hands, as separate individuals, seems to me to be the 
root evil of Anarchy. 

On December 4th, Mr. Bennett sent in his resignation, by 
demand of the Bishop, of his living. A few days before this 
Mr. Bennett published A First Letter to Lord John Russell, 
which is remarkable for its unsparing and just exposure of 

1 Bennett s Farewell Letter to his Parishioners, p. 84. 

2 Ibid. p. 86. 3 Ibid. pp. 91, 92. 


the way in which his lordship had been supporting Popery 
for many years, and for its acknowledgment that Auricular 
Confession, as practised by the Puseyite clergy, was in itself 
identical with that of the Church of Rome. On this latter 
point, Mr. Bennett s words are : " Sufficient it is to me to 
call your attention to the fact, that Confession to a priest 
(commonly called Auricular Confession), is advocated and 
pronounced useful by the English Church. The only differ 
ence you will observe between the Church of Rome and 
ourselves being this, that Rome makes such Confession 
absolutely necessary for salvation ; the other leaves it as a 
voluntary act, to be used or not used, according to the 
spiritual needs of the penitent." * A few weeks later Dr. 
Pusey had the audacity to say that : " I am not aware that 
any Divine or Bishop in our Church, since the Reformation, 
has excepted against anything, except making Confession 
compulsory." 2 The truth is, that almost all our Divines and 
Bishops since the Reformation, down to the commencement 
of the Oxford Movement, were deadly enemies of the Con 
fessional itself, as conducted by Pusey, excepting only the 
Laudian Divines. A large number of Mr. Bennett s congre 
gation took his part in his controversy with the Bishop, and 
an effort was made to keep him in the living by an appeal 
to a Court of law. A legal opinion was taken on this ques 
tion, but as it was decidedly adverse to any appeal to a 
Court, the proposed proceedings were necessarily dropped. 
Towards the end of 1850, another fierce controversy 
arose at St. Saviour s, Leeds. The Bishop of Ripon had 
had painful experience of the evasive and Romanising con 
duct of the clergy of that church. In June 1850, his lord 
ship informed one of its clergy that " the proceedings of the 
clergy of St. Saviour s were of such a character as to destroy 
all my confidence in them ; and that their study seemed to 
be how far they could evade their Bishop s known wishes, 
without violating the letter of the law." 3 In the month of 

1 A First Letter to Lord John Russell. By the Rev. W. J. E. Bennett, p. 43. 
London : Cleaver. 1850. 

2 A Letter to the Bishop of London. By the Rev. E. B. Pusey, D.D., p. 3. 
Oxford : 1851. 

3 A Letter to the Parishioners of St. Saviour s, Leeds. By the Bishop of 
Ripon, p. 29. London : Rivington. 1851. 


October 1850, a meeting of twelve clergymen was held at 
St. Saviour s, at which the two following resolutions, which 
clearly show the traitorous spirit of those who passed them, 
were carried unanimously : 

" That the very existence of the English Church involves the 
principle of her submission, in matters of faith, to the Church 

" That her national history, previous to the Reformation, indi 
cates that such submission can only be made through the medium of the 
Papal Seer * 

Of course these were thoroughly dishonest resolutions, 
which reflected the utmost disgrace on the clergy of the 
Church of England who passed them, and fully justified the 
strong remarks of the Bishop of Ripon about the clergy of 
St. Saviour s, in his letter to the parishioners : * For my 
own part," said the Bishop, " I shall refrain from saying 
more than that their conduct has verified, in a remarkable 
and very painful manner, the statement which I had made 
in my Episcopal Charge three months only previous, that 
1 the nearer persons approach to the Roman system, the 
more will their powers of judgment be perverted, their moral 
sense blunted, and an obliquity of moral vision superinduced, 
blinding them more and more to the simplicity of Christian 
truth, and estranging them more and more from the sincerity 
of Christian practice." 2 

The Rev. J. H. Pollen, who for a time was one of the 
Curates of St. Saviour s, frankly admits that this meeting 
was held, and he says that the clergy present "came to 
resolutions to the effect that the English Church was sub 
ject to the Catholic Church as regards the faith. That now 
was a time when she needed to refer to that tribunal for 
support and guidance that the Apostolic See had hitherto 
been the only access to that voice." 3 

Early in December a majority of the clergy of Leeds 
requested the Bishop of Ripon to hold a commission for 
the purpose of investigating certain charges to be brought 
against the clergy of St. Saviour s. Dr. Hook, Vicar of 

1 A Letter to the Parishioners of St. Saviour 1 s, Leeds. By the Bishop of 
Ripon, p. 29. 2 Ibid. p. 15. 

3 Narrative of Five Years at St. Saviour s, Leeds. By the Rev. J. H. Pollen, 
p. 166. Oxford: J. Vincent. 1851. 



Leeds, shortly before had publicly separated himself from 
the advanced section of his party. In a preface to two 
sermons he had preached, the Vicar of Leeds said : " I 
take leave to make a wide distinction between a Romaniser 
and a High Churchman." 

" But when," wrote Dr. Hook, " I now find them [the Roman- 
isers] calumniators of the Church of England, and vindicators of the 
Church of Rome; palliating the vices of the Romish system, and 
magnifying the deficiencies of the Church of England ; sneering at 
everything Anglican, and admiring everything Romish; students of 
the Breviary and Missal, disciples of the Schoolmen, converts to 
medisevalism, insinuating Romish sentiments, circulating and re- 
publishing Romish works; introducing Romish practices in their 
private, and infusing a Romish tone into their public devotions ; 
introducing the Romish Confessional, enjoining Romish penances, 
adopting Romish prostrations, recommending Romish Litanies ; mut 
tering the Romish shibboleth, and rejoicing in the cant of Romish 
fanaticism, assuming sometimes the garb of the Romish priesthood, 
and venerating without imitating their celibacy ; defending Romish 
miracles, and receiving as true the lying legends of Rome; almost 
adoring Romish saints, and complaining that we have had no saints in 
England since we purified our Church ; explaining away the idolatry, 
and pining for the Mariolatry of the Church of Rome ; vituperating 
the English Reformation, and receiving for truth the false doctrines 
of the Council of Trent ; when I hear them whispering in the ears 
of credulous ignorance, in high places as well as low, that the two 
Churches are in principle the same ; when they who were once in 
the pit on the one side of the wall, have now tumbled over on the 
other side, and have fallen into a lower deep still gaping to devour 
them ; I conceive that I am bound as a High Churchman to re 
main stationary, and not to follow them in their downfalling. I 
believe it to be incumbent upon every High Churchman to declare 
plainly that it is not merely in detail, that it is not merely in the 
application of our principles themselves, that we differ from the 
Church of Rome; and that no man can secede to Rome, the system 
of which is opposed to the truth as it is in Jesus, without placing 
his soul in peril, and risking his salvation. ... It is not against 
Romanists but against Romanisers that we write ; against those who 
are doing the work of the Church of Rome while eating the bread 
of the Church of England." l 

1 Life of Dean Hook, vol. ii. pp. 278, 279. 


The Bishop of Ripon held his inquiry concerning St. 
Saviour s Church in the vestry of Leeds Parish Church, on 
December 14 and 15, 1850. Dr. Hook was present, and 
the inquiry extended itself into all the Romanising practices 
and doctrines of the accused clergy. But the chief subject 
considered was a charge against the Rev. H. F. Beckett, 
one of the Curates, of hearing the confession of a married 
woman (who appeared as a witness), without the knowledge 
of her husband, and then asking her shockingly indelicate 
and indecent questions. Of this witness the Bishop subse 
quently stated : " Every attempt was made, but in vain, to 
invalidate her simple, straightforward testimony ; and no 
imputation was ever cast upon her general integrity." l 
After the inquiry the Bishop wrote to Mr. Beckett : " It 
appeared in evidence which you did not contradict, and 
could not shake by any cross-examination, that Mr. Rooke, 
who was then a deacon, having required a married woman 
who was a candidate for confirmation to go for Confession 
to you as a priest, you received that female to confession 
under these circumstances, and that you put to her ques 
tions which she says made her feel very much ashamed and 
greatly distressed her, and which were of such an indelicate 
nature that she would never tell her husband of them." 2 
Mr. Beckett replied to the Bishop s letter, but he did not 
dare to deny the truth of the charges brought against him. 
He made, however, one remarkable assertion, which hus 
bands whose wives go to Confession would do well to bear 
in mind. " No woman" he said, "would, I suppose, ever tell 
her husband what had passed in her Confession " ; 3 and as to 
asking questions of the penitent, he wrote : " The asking of 
questions according to the discretion of the Confessor is, 
your lordship must see, absolutely necessary to make Con 
fession of value to those who have recourse to it." 4 

It was thought absolutely necessary by the Bishop of 
Ripon (afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury) to print some 
of the indecent questions which this Puseyite priest put to 

1 A Letter to the Parishioners of St. Saviour *s, Leeds. By the Bishop of Ripon, 

P- 3 1 - 

2 Ibid. p. 37. 8 Ibid. p. 38. 
4 Ibid. p. 39. 


this woman in the Confessional. 1 All that I can say about 
them here is that if any husband, be he Protestant or 
Ritualist, knew that his wife was asked those questions 
in Confession by her Ritualistic Confessor, the next time 
that Confessor came to that husband s house he would 
knock him down flat, and afterwards kick him out of the 
house. I do not say the husband ought to act thus : I only 
affirm that he could not very well help doing so. And I 
am quite certain that the filthy-tongued Confessor, who 
asked such obscene questions, w r ould deserve all that he 
got from an outraged and justly indignant husband. Ordi 
nary men of the world would be ashamed to ask such 
questions ; but these brazen-faced Puseyite priests of St. 
Saviour s, Leeds, gloried in their shame. They issued a 
Statement of their case, in which they had the audacity 
to justify Father Confessors in asking penitents, male or 
female, indecent questions. As this, to my ordinary readers, 
will seem almost incredible, I give their justification of such 
dirty conduct in the priests own words : 

"We now come," said the clergy of St. Saviour s, "to the second 
charge, relied on by the Bishop, against Mr. Beckett. The same 
witness states that certain questions which he asked her were very 

"To those who do not recognise the presence of Almighty God 
in the ministrations of the Confessional, it may seem that an in 
delicate question may be a wrong one. But we believe that He 
who has created physicians for bodily sickness, and by them is 
pleased to effect many merciful cures, has ordained other physicians 
in His Church for the relief of men s spiritual disorders ; and that 
there is an analogy between the discretion which we willingly con 
cede to those whom we consult for the health of our bodies, and 
that which must be exercised by the physicians of the soul. If this 
be true, a question in itself indelicate ceases to be so when it is 
known to be important to the safe treatment of the sufferer s case ; 
and woe be to those who countenance the vicious refinement of 
this generation, and abet the world in its unceasing efforts to place 
a false delicacy between the soul and its salvation. It would doubt 
less be indelicate, were it not in the highest degree necessary, to 
drag sin from its lurking-place, and expose it to the sinner s view; 

1 A Letter to the Parishioners of St. Saviours, Leeds. By the Bishop of 
Ripon, p. 32. 


but that there is often a paramount necessity for doing this, will be 
doubted by none whose earnest thoughts of sin and of repentance, 
of God s wrath and of acceptance with Him, have not been checked 
and stunted, chilled or blasted, by the breath of Lutheran heresy 
and Socinian unbelief. Whether such a necessity existed in the case 
which has led the Bishop to visit Mr. Beckett with his severest 
displeasure, is known, and will be known, to none but God and Mr. 
Beckett himself. He was asked by Mr. Randall, at the investiga 
tion, whether he would have put the same questions to his (Mr. 
Randall s) wife ? to which he replied that under the same circum 
stances he would have put the same questions, not only to Mr. 
Randall s wife, but even to Mr. Randall himself." l 

A defence of this kind is simply a slander on an honour 
able profession. No medical man of honour would ever 
ask a patient such questions as those put to this woman in 
the Confessional. And even if, in some points, the analogy 
were to hold good, yet it would fail in this. The priest in 
the Confessional is not a physician but a quack, who kills 
souls, instead of curing them. The whole system of Con 
fession on these indelicate lines is abhorrent to every 
enlightened Christian. It pollutes both Confessor and 

The result of the Bishop s investigation was that all the 
clergy of St. Saviour s, with one exception, seceded to the 
Church of Rome. Out of fifteen clergy who had laboured 
in that Church since its consecration in 1845, no fewer than 
nine had now seceded to the Church of Rome. So much 
for the first attempt to exhibit the Oxford Movement in 

1 The Statement of the Clergy of St. Saviour s, Leeds, in Reference to the. 
Recent Proceedings Against Them, p. 9. Leeds : S. Morrish. 1851. 


The Bristol Church Union Pusey objects to a protest against Rome 
Archbishop Tait on the Church Discipline Act The Judicial Com 
mittee of Privy Council Lay Address to the Queen Her Majesty s 
action in response Lay Address to the Archbishop of Canterbury 
The appeal to the Bishops An Episcopal Manifesto A Clerical and 
Lay Declaration in support of the Gorham judgment The Confes 
sional at Plymouth Revival and reform of Convocation Prosecu 
tion of Archdeacon Denison The power and privileges of examining 
chaplains The Archbishop s Commission of Inquiry The Arch 
bishop s judgment at Bath How the Archdeacon evaded punishment 
Pusey hoists the flag of rebellion The protest against the Bath 
judgment The Society of the Holy Cross The Association for the 
Promotion of the Unity of Christendom Startling revelations as to 
its early history Secret negotiations with Rome De Lisle s secret 
letter to Cardinal Barnabo The Cardinal s answer Newman con 
sulted by De Lisle The conspirators meet in London Their secret, 
traitorous, and treacherous message to the Pope The case of Wes- 
terton v. Liddell Judgment A Ritualistic rebel. 

A NUMBER of independent " Church Unions/ formed by the 
Tractarians, had been in existence for several years when 
the Papal Aggression commenced. The first of these, called 
the Bristol Union, was formed in 1844, to which were sub 
sequently affiliated a number of local Church Unions 
throughout the country, all having the promotion of High 
Church principles as their chief object. In addition to 
these, but working independently on similar lines, were the 
Metropolitan Church Union, and the London Church Union. 
One of the chief promoters of the Bristol Church Union 
was the Rev. William Palmer, whose Narrative of Events 
Connected with the Tracts for the Times, published in 1843, 
was, as I have already stated, the first effectual exposure of 
the Romanising party which had appeared up to that date. 
At the time of the Papal Aggression Mr. Palmer was very 
much alarmed at the prospect of the extreme division of 
the Puseyites, under their leader Dr. Pusey, capturing all the 


Church Unions throughout the country. He wished these 
Unions to be regulated by those High Church principles 
which had ever guided his own conduct. The London 
Church Union, which was then managed by the extreme 
section, was anxious to become the centre of the whole of 
the Church Unions of the country, and thus bring them all 
under the guidance of men in whom moderate High Church 
men could place no trust. That Mr. Palmer s fears were 
not without foundation is proved by a letter written to Mr. 
A. Beresford Hope, M.P., by Dr. Pusey, on October 3, 1850. 
The Metropolitan Church Union, to which he refers at the 
commencement of his letter, was not, at that time so Mr. 
Palmer states 1 under Tractarian (though it was under 
High Church) guidance. 

" MY DEAR HOPE, All hope of reconciliation with the Metro 
politan is now plainly at an end. But something must be done to 
prevent their absorbing the whole Church Movement into their 
hands, at which they are evidently aiming. Some are ambitious for 
the Metropolitan ; Palmer wishes to get rid of J. K.[eble] and my 
self; Dr. Biber to put forward himself. 

" Might not the London Union unite itself more closely with 
some of the others ? as the Bristol, the South- Eastern, the Yorks, 
&c. . . . 

" One great Union, such as Badeley suggests, which should take 
in all England, and have leading clergy or laity from every diocese 
on its Committee (the distrusts would not often be then) would be 
immense strength. 

"The members of this great Union in each diocese might 
assemble in their diocese, at any time, or regularly as now, and 
any member in the diocese, who was a member of the Central Com 
mittee, might be the chairman. 

" This (which B. suggested) would have much greater moral 
strength than the existing Unions. 

" I wish that you would think of this, or some similar plan. I 
sent you Badeley s opinion, which was sent to J. K.[eble] relatively 
to the plan we were hoping might be carried out, that all Unions 
might be fused into one. God bless you. Yours most faithfully, 

" E. B. PUSEY." 

" LONDON, Oct. 3." 

1 A Statement of Circumstances. By William Palmer, M.A., p. 21. London : 
Rivington. 1850. 


The idea here suggested by Pusey was eventually carried 
out several years later by the formation of the English 
Church Union. Palmer s suspicions were therefore well 
founded, and so to prevent, if possible, what he considered 
would be a disaster to the High Church cause, he gave 
notice that at the forthcoming Annual Meeting of the 
Bristol Church Union on October ist, he would propose that 
a " Statement of Principles " should be adopted by the 
Union, containing a protest against the Church of Rome 
and her errors. On hearing of this proposal Pusey was 
greatly alarmed. A protest against Rome was what he 
hated with all his heart. He was afraid that his Father 
Confessor, Keble, would approve of this protest, so he wrote 
to him : " If you go along with this plan I shall withdraw 
my name from the Bristol Union, by a letter to the Chair 
man, in order not to have any responsibility in the matter." l 
Canon Liddon tells us that : " Dr. Mill suggested a resolu 
tion expressing love and allegiance to the English Church, 
as reformed in the sixteenth century/ Pusey would prefer 
to omit the allusion to the sixteenth century. It would 
introduce a large controverted subject, and would repel 
many minds. Pusey would have as simple a statement as 
possible ; a positive statement of love for the Church of 
England, without a negative statement about the Church of 
Rome." Keble at length came over to Pusey s view, and 
therefore wrote : " I cannot join in any Anti-Roman 
Declaration that I have yet seen, not even in my own, now 
that I find the terms of it are equivocal." 3 At length the 
day arrived (October ist), on which the Bristol Church 
Union held its annual meeting. And what, it may be asked, 
was this declaration which Pusey and his supporters so 
dreaded and hated ? It was proposed by the Rev. William 
Palmer, and seconded by the Rev. Prebendary Clarke, and 
was as follows : 


" i. That the English branch of the One Holy Catholic and 
Apostolic Church, which has reformed herself, taking primitive 

1 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. iii. p. 275. 

2 Ibid. p. 275. 3 Ibid. p. 280. 


Christianity as her model, has a claim upon the undivided and 
faithful allegiance of the whole English people. 

" 2. That the Roman Church (including the other Churches 
in communion with her) having repudiated communion with all 
the Churches which do not recognise the claims of the Bishop of 
Rome, and having by formal decrees and other authoritative acts, 
and in her popular practice, corrupted the primitive faith and worship 
of the Holy Catholic Church, and persisted in the said claims and 
corruptions, communion with the Roman Church, on the part of 
Churches, and therefore of individuals, of the English Communion, 
cannot, consistently with the laws of Christ, be restored, until the 
Roman Church shall have relinquished her pretensions ; and suffi 
cient provision shall have been made for the maintenance of Christian 
truth in all its purity and integrity. 

" 3. That the serious dangers to the faith, arising from the abuse 
of private judgment, and from a mere negative Protestantism, having 
of late years been greatly aggravated by the insidious propagation of 
Rationalistic notions, and by the encroachments of a Latitudinarian 
State policy, it is the duty of all members of the Church of England 
to offer to these several abuses, errors, and pernicious principles, the 
most active and uncompromising opposition." l 

The wording of the third section of this Statement shows 
that Mr. Palmer was no lover of decided Protestantism ; 
nor can there be a reasonable doubt that if there were 
nothing more in the Declaration than this section it would 
have been carried unanimously. But, as we have seen, the 
Corporate Reunion of the Church of Rome had been the 
chief object of the leaders of the Oxford Movement from 
its very birth. How, then, could they agree to a Declara 
tion censuring either that Church, its doctrines, or its 
practices ? And why should they be called upon to demand 
that Rome should " relinquish her pretensions," or give up 
any of her doctrines, as a condition of England s union 
with her ? It is true that no reasonably loyal Churchman 
could consistently object to sign the second clause of the 
Declaration ; but these were not consistent or loyal Church 
men, as their conduct on this occasion amply proved. 
They were more anxious to shield and protect the Church 
of Rome from her enemies than to defend the Church of 

1 Palmer s Statement of Circumstances > p. 74. 


England, and, therefore, Lord Forbes proposed, and Mr. 
A. Beresford Hope, M.P., seconded, the following amend 
ment, which was carried by a large majority : 

" That whereas the Bristol Union was designed to be a union 
of all Churchmen desirous of co-operating in the promotion of cer 
tain defined objects, it cannot consent to narrow the basis of its 
constitution by identifying itself with an organisation which is founded 
upon the acceptance of a Declaration of faith over and above the 
existing formularies of the English Church, which it desires to make 
the rule of its proceedings." l 

Amongst those who spoke in favour of this amendment, 
in addition to the mover and seconder, were Dr. Pusey and 
the Rev. ]. Keble. Amongst those who spoke in favour of 
Mr. Palmer s motion was the Rev. G. A. Denison, afterwards 
so well known as Archdeacon Denison. The objection to 
signing a Declaration of faith "over and above the existing 
formularies," came w 7 ith a bad grace from those very men 
who signed Declarations of faith soon after "over and 
above the existing formularies " in defence of Baptismal 
Regeneration, as against the Gorham judgment. Two days 
after the Bristol meeting, Dr. Hook replied to an invitation 
to join the Yorkshire Church Union. He declined to do so. 

" I do not," he wrote, " see how members of the Church of Eng 
land can be called upon to form a Union, except on the principles, 
and in vindication of the principle?, of the English Reformation. 
Those principles are both Catholic and Protestant Catholic as 
opposed to the peculiarities of Rationalism, and Protestant as 
opposed to the Medievalism of the Romanist. I do not see how a 
consistent High Churchman can, after what has transpired, join your 
Union, unless you state one of your objects to be to maintain and 
propagate the principles of the English Reformation ; to uphold 
Scriptural and primitive truth in opposition to mediaeval heresies ; 
and to preserve the middle position of the Church of England in 
opposition equally to Rationalistic scepticism and Romish supersti 
tion. If this were to be one of the avowed objects of your institu 
tion, it would exclude Romanisers as well as all Rationalists." 2 

One result of the Gorham judgment was seen this year 
in an organised attack on the Judicial Committee of Privy 

1 English Churchman, October 3, 1850, p. 675. 

2 Ibid. October 10, 1850, p. 685. 


Council as the final Court of Appeal. It was the desire of 
the Puseyites that not only should the Church s laws be 
made by the clergy only, but that they alone should be 
judges in ecclesiastical causes. Their wish was to bring 
the Church once more into priestly bondage. It is remark 
able that the Act of Parliament which made the Judicial 
Committee of Privy Council the final Court of Appeal (viz., 
3 & 4 Victoria, chap. 86), was passed with the consent of 
the Bishops. Archbishop Tait, on this subject, wrote, while 
Bishop of London : 

"It is important to observe that this Act was framed with the 
concurrence of the Bishops. The Lord Chancellor, in introducing 
it, expressed a hope that it would reconcile all differences upon the 
subject. The Archbishop of Canterbury, on the part of the clergy, 
gave his cordial approbation to the Bill ; the Bishop of Exeter, also, 
entirely and heartily concurred in the measure. There is no record 
of any debate upon the Bill, beyond a very few suggestions by inde 
pendent members in either House ; and the acquiescence with which 
it was received on all sides was doubtless owing to the agreement 
of the Bishops in supporting the measure. It seems clear, therefore, 
that the rulers of our Church at that time saw no reason to object to 
the Judicial Committee as a Court of Appeal in matters of ecclesiastical 
discipline, whether relating to faith or morals. It would be a serious 
reflection upon the character of men like Archbishop Howley, and 
Bishop Blomfield, and Bishop Kaye, were it to be supposed that 
they were ignorant of the nature of a tribunal which they had them 
selves assisted in founding, or that they were careless of the interests 
with which they were now, after trial, entrusting it, or that they 
deliberately sanctioned an institution against which any objection of 
principle could be raised." l 

During this year, the Bishop of London introduced a 
Bill into the House of Lords, which received the assent of 
the Archbishop of Canterbury, the object of which was to 
deprive the Judicial Committee of Privy Council of its powers 
as the final Court of Appeal, and to transfer them to the 
Upper House of Convocation. Happily it was defeated on 
its second reading, on June 3, 1850, by 84 to 51, and from 
that day to this the Judicial Committee remains the final 
Court of Appeal. It will be a dark day for Protestantism 

1 Brodrick and Freemantle syw<2^w<?#fr of the Judicial Committee. Introduc 
tion by the Bishop of London, p. Ixxi. 


should Parliament ever make the Bishops the final Court of 
Appeal. The opinion of Lord John Russell on this impor 
tant subject was wise and worthy of remembrance. He 
wrote to the Bishop of London on February 25, 1850 : 
" What I think essential to the Queen s Supremacy is that no 
person should be deprived of his rights unless by due inter 
pretation of law. If the Supreme Court of Appeal in heresy 
were formed solely of the clergy, their opinions would pro 
bably be founded on the prevailing theological opinions 
of the Judicial Bishops, who might be one day Calvinistic 
and the next Romish. Especially if three senior Bishops 
and two Divinity Professors were to form part of the 
tribunal, we might have superannuated Bishops and Uni 
versity intolerance driving out of the Church its most dis 
tinguished ornaments." l It was on this same subject of a 
final Court of Appeal that his lordship wrote the sentence 
which I have already cited : " I fear that nothing but the 
erection of a priestly supremacy over the Crown would ever 
satisfy the party in the Church who now take the lead in 
agitation." r 

The Papal Aggression led to a great increase of Protes 
tant opposition to Puseyism throughout the country. By 
this time the Puseyite clergy had made considerable pro 
gress in the adoption of Ritual which had not been seen in 
English Churches since the Protestant Reformation. Pro 
tests were heard on every hand, and addresses to the Bishops 
were multiplied. Of these, the most remarkable was the 
outcome of a great Protestant meeting held in the Free 
masons Hall, on December 6, 1850, over which Lord Ashley 
presided. An important Lay Address to the Queen on the 
subject of the Papal Aggression w r as presented to her 
Majesty, signed by 63 Peers, 108 Members of Parliament, 
and 321,240 lay members of the Church of England. In 
this Address, an earnest protest was made against the 
Romanising work going on in the Church of England. 
From it I give the following extracts : 

" But we desire also humbly to represent to your Majesty our 
conviction, confirmed by the recent testimony of several Bishops of 

1 Life of Lord John Rttsselt, vol. ii. p. 116. 2 Ibid. p. 117. 


our Church, that the Court of Rome would never have attempted 
such an act of aggression had not encouragements been held out to 
that encroaching power by many of the clergy of our own Church, 
who have for several years past shown a desire to assimilate the 
doctrines and services of the Church of England to those of the 
Roman Communion. While we would cheerfully contend for the 
principles of the Reformation against all open enemies, we have to 
lament that our most dangerous foes are those of our own household ; 
and hence we feel that it is to little purpose to repel the aggressions 
of the foreigner, unless those principles and practices which have 
tempted him to such aggressions be publicly and universally re 

"We are conscious that the evils to which we allude are deeply 
seated, and have been the growth of a series of years, and hence we 
entertain no expectation that they can be suddenly eradicated. But 
we humbly entreat your Majesty, in the exercise of your Royal 
Prerogative, to direct the attention of the Primates and the Bishops 
of the Church to the necessity of using all fit and proper means to 
purify it from the infection of false doctrine ; and, as respects external 
and visible observances, in which many novelties have been intro 
duced, to take care that measures may be promptly adopted for the 
repression of all such practices. 

"While we feel deeply conscious that the true and effectual 
remedy for the dangers which beset our Protestant Church belongs 
to no human power, but only to the Supreme Head of the Church 
whose Almighty aid is to be sought by humble, persevering prayer, 
we are thankful that, by the Constitution and the existing laws, there 
is vested in your Majesty, as the Earthly Head of our Church, a 
wholesome power of interposition ; which power we entreat your 
Majesty now to exercise. The records of the reigns of your Majesty s 
illustrious predecessors, both before and since the glorious Revolu 
tion, furnish many examples of the manner in which the mischiefs 
and abuses which at various times have sprung up in the Church 
have been dealt with by the exercise of the Royal Authority. 

" That it may please your Majesty, on a view of the peculiar 
perils in which our Protestant Church is now placed, to interpose for 
its defence, is our humble petition." 

A record of some of the instances, referred to in this 
petition, in which evils in the Church have been dealt with 
by the exercise of the Royal Prerogative, may be read in 
Cardwell s Documentary Annals of the Reformed Church of 
England. It gave great pleasure to those who signed this 


petition to the Queen to find that it had been acted on by 
her Majesty. By her command a copy was sent to the 
Archbishop of Canterbury, to be by him communicated to 
the Archbishop of York and the Bishops, with a request that 
they would do all in their power to prevent innovations. 
Sir George Grey s letter, conveying the Royal commands to 
the Archbishop, is important, not only for what it contains, 
but as a possible precedent in the not distant future. It 
was as follows : 

"WHITEHALL, \st April> 1851. 

"Mv LORD ARCHBISHOP, I have received the Queen s com 
mands to transmit to your Grace the accompanying Address, which 
has been presented to her Majesty, signed by a very large number 
of lay members of the United Church of England and Ireland, 
including many Members of both Houses of Parliament. 

" Her Majesty places full confidence in your Grace s desire to 
use such means as are within your power to maintain the purity of 
the doctrines taught by the clergy of the Established Church, and 
to discourage and prevent innovations in the mode of conducting 
the services of the Church not sanctioned by law or general usage, 
and calculated to create dissatisfaction and alarm among a numerous 
body of its members. 

"I am, therefore, commanded to place this Address in your 
Grace s hands, and to request that it may be communicated to the 
Archbishop of York and to the Suffragan Bishops in England and 
Wales, who, her Majesty does not doubt, will concur with your 
Grace in the endeavour, by a judicious exercise of their authority 
and influence, to uphold the purity and simplicity of the Faith and 
Worship of our Reformed Church, and to reconcile differences 
among its members injurious to its peace and usefulness. I have 
the honour to be, my Lord Archbishop, your Grace s obedient 
servant, G. GREY. 


On March 19, 1851, Lord Ashley presented an address 
to the Archbishop of Canterbury, signed by 239,860 clerical 
and lay members of the Church of England, stating that 
the Papal Aggression had been " invited, encouraged, and 
facilitated" by the state of things in the English Church 
produced by Tractarianism, and calling upon the Bishops 
to give "the desired relief." The Archbishop, in his reply, 


said : " It will be vain to deny what our adversaries have 
themselves avowed, that the aggressive measures on the 
part of Rome, against which this country is protesting, 
have been encouraged by symptoms of approach towards 
Romish doctrines and Romish usages which have appeared 
of late years within the Church of England. It is also 
certain that the principles which have been loudly main 
tained and zealously propagated, under the equivocal title 
of Church principles, have a tendency to lead those who 
embrace them to reconciliation with the Church of Rome, 
as the Church in which those principles are most perfectly 
carried out and established." 1 In conclusion, his Grace 
promised, on behalf of the Episcopal Bench, that they 
would do their duty in preventing practices and innovations 
in public worship, which had their origin in error and 
superstition. I have no doubt that his Grace meant all 
that he said, but, alas ! the Protestant petitioners looked to 
the Bishops in vain for any effectual remedy for the evils 
of which they complained. And so it has been ever since 
to the present day. There have been some noble exceptions 
to the general rule with regard to the attitude of the Bishops 
in their own dioceses, but taking the Episcopal Bench as a 
whole they have lamentably failed in their duty. We have 
had plenty of words, and many promises, but for all this, 
little or nothing has been done to satisfy the just demands 
of the loyal and aggrieved laity. What was the immediate 
result of the Archbishop of Canterbury s promise of Epis 
copal action in 1851 ? Scarcely anything but an Episcopal 
Manifesto, which, however, was not signed by the Bishops 
of Bath and Wells, Exeter, Manchester, and Hereford. 
It was about as mild and harmless a document as could 
well be imagined. It was simply an exhortation to the 
clergy to make no innovations in Divine Service which 
should give offence to the congregation, even if legal ; and 
to do nothing contrary to the law of the Church. They 
did, however, denounce the principle which had been laid 
down by some of the clergy, that " whatever form or usage 
existed in the Church before the Reformation may now be 

1 Guardian, March 22, 1851, p. 212. 


freely introduced and observed, unless there can be alleged 
against it the distinct letter of some formal prohibition." 
As to this principle their lordships declared that : " It is 
manifest that a licence such as is contended for is wholly 
incompatible with any uniformity of worship whatsoever, 
and at variance with the universal practice of the Catholic 
Church, which has never given to the officiating Ministers 
of separate congregations any such large discretion in the 
selection of ritual observances." 1 From this document it 
is evident that the overwhelming majority of the Bishops 
of that day accepted the principle that " omission is pro 

Later on in the year, another Declaration was signed by 
no fewer than 3262 clergymen, including seven Deans and 
twelve Archdeacons, in favour of the Royal Supremacy, and 
expressing approval of the judgment of the Judicial Com 
mittee of Privy Council in the Gorham case. It was for 
warded to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York. Those 
who signed it declared that they felt called upon " under 
present circumstances (whether holding or not the view 
which called forth the judgment) humbly to state our con 
viction that it was a wise and just sentence, in accordance 
with the principles of the Church of England. And we re 
spectfully, but firmly, protest against any attempt, from 
whatever quarter it may proceed, to bring into contempt a 
judgment so issued ; and to charge with false teaching, and 
discredit with their flocks, those whose doctrine has been 
pronounced by that judgment to be not contrary or repug 
nant to the declared doctrine of the Church of England. 
And we respectfully, but firmly, protest against any attempt, 
from whatever quarter it may proceed, to bring into con 
tempt a judgment so issued." Amongst those who signed 
this very proper declaration, was the Very Rev. A. C. Tait, 
Dean of Carlisle, and afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury. 
From the Archbishop of Canterbury a reply to the Declara 
tion was received, expressing " much satisfaction " at receiv 
ing it, while from the Archbishop of York a letter was 
received expressing approval of the Declaration. 2 

1 Guardian, April 2, 1851, p. 251. 2 Ibid. January 14, 1852, p 28. 


A great deal of excitement was created in Plymouth 
during the year 1852, in connection with some Confes 
sional scandals alleged to have taken place at St. Peter s 
Church in that city. The Bishop of Exeter was asked to 
hold a judicial inquiry on oath as to the alleged facts, but 
he declined to do so. In the month of September, however, 
he held an inquiry into the case at the Royal Hotel, Ply 
mouth, but refused to consider it as judicial, nor would he 
consent to grant the urgent entreaties of the Protestant ac 
cusers of the Vicar of St. Peter s, that the witnesses should be 
sworn before giving their evidence. The principal charge 
against the Vicar was that of hearing the Confessions of 
young girls from the institutions of Miss Sellon s Sisters of 
Mercy, and then asking them indecent questions. During 
the inquiry a letter was read from Miss Sellon, the Mother 
Superior of the Sisterhood, denying that any of the girls 
under the care of the Sisters were " in anywise compelled or 
constrained to confess," but admitting that they were allowed 
to go "of free choice " ; and that " it is our constant practice 
to advise them to see their Minister, either for this pur 
pose [Confession], or for receiving such higher counsel and 
spiritual aid as it is not ours to give them, for their soul s 
good." l The principal witness examined was a girl whose 
character, as it appeared at the inquiry, was far from satis 
factory, nor would it, I think, have been right to have con 
demned the Vicar on such evidence, more especially as he 
appeared personally before the Bishop and in the most 
solemn manner denied that he had ever even so much as 
received the girl to Confession at all, much less put disgust 
ing questions to her. There were other cases to be brought 
against the Vicar, and it was certainly unfortunate, for both 
parties, that time was not allowed to bring them forward. 
In the result, the Bishop entirely acquitted the Vicar as to 
the whole of the charges brought against him, and declared 
that he was free, not merely from blame, but "even of 
indiscretion in receiving the Confessions made to him." 
There was, however, a remarkable letter from the accused 
Vicar to the Bishop, which was read at the inquiry, which 
contained a startling statement worthy of nctice heie 

1 Guardian, September 29, 1852, p. 647. 



Referring therein to his practice in the Confessional he in 
no way denied that he heard Confessions he declared : 
" On the Seventh Commandment I trust I have been most 
cautious not to suggest evil to the penitent, but judicious 
questions . l This was a frank acknowledgment that, in 
some cases, he asked questions about the Seventh Com 
mandment one of the most objectionable features of the 
Confessional to an enlightened Protestant mind. If a girl 
has a trouble on this subject it would be far wiser, and more 
modest, to consult one of her own sex for advice. Later 
on in the year Dr. Pusey wrote to this same Vicar that : 
" It is (as you know), a mere dream, that any father, mother, 
husband, wife, or child, would be pained by any question 
\ve put in Confession, apart from the pain that sins have 
been committed." 2 In reply to this very bold statement, 
it may be sufficient to ask any husband or father reading 
these pages Would you like your wife or daughter ques 
tioned in the Confessional as to sins of word, thought, and 
deed against the Seventh Commandment ? You would, in 
such a case, be something more than "pained"; you would 
be highly and justly indignant, if a wife or daughter of yours 
had been thus subjected to the indecent talk of a Father Con 
fessor, who might be far from immaculate. The whole thing 
is disgusting and intolerable. I should be sorry to accuse 
Ritualistic Confessors generally of doing this sort of dirty 
work from evil motives ; but it is dirty work none the less, 
whose natural tendency is to corrupt both priest and peni 
tent. God, the Holy Ghost, in his Word, exhorts us con 
cerning sin against this commandment : "Let it not be once 
named among you, as becometh saints " ; and I am not 
aware that any exception is given in favour of a Father Con 
fessor an official wholly unknown in the New Testament. 
A very important event took place on November 12, 
1852, when the Convocation of Canterbury met for the 
despatch of business, for the first time in 135 years. A 
persistent agitation for freedom to transact business had 
gone on for several years, and a " Society for the Revival 
of Convocation" had been formed in the previous year. 

1 Grtardian, September 29, 1852, p. 647. 2 Ibid. November 24, 1852, p. 788. 


The founders of this Society, some time before its forma 
tion, endeavoured in vain to secure the adhesion of the 
National Club to an address to the Queen in favour of the 
revival of Convocation. This Club, I may here remark, 
was formed in 1845 for promoting the cause of Protestant 
ism in the Established Church, and is still in existence with 
a very large number of members. The movement for the 
Revival of Convocation was mainly conducted by High 
Churchmen, and was not fully successful until March 20, 
1861, when the Convocation of York also met for the transac 
tion of business. And now, after nearly forty years, we are 
met face to face with an agitation, not for the Revival, but for 
the Reform of Convocation, and a Bill has been prepared 
to enable it to reform itself. Unfortunately, there are so 
many Romanisers in Convocation that Protestant Church 
men cannot safely entrust them with such an important 
task, nor should any reform be considered satisfactory 
which does not give to the laity an adequate representa 
tion, with a voice on all questions, whether matters of 
doctrine or discipline. But this is what the extreme 
Ritualists will never, if they can help it, permit the present 
Convocations to accept, and to allow the Convocations of 
Canterbury and York to become a real Parliament of the 
Church, without granting to the laity even as much power 
as they already possess in the Established Church of Scot 
land, would be to place the Church of England under 
sacerdotal bondage as real as that from which our fore 
fathers escaped at the Protestant Reformation. 

During the years 1853 and 1854 n t man Y events of 
great importance took place in the History of the Rome- 
ward Movement, with the exception of the prosecution of 
Archdeacon Denison for false doctrine, and the first steps 
in the case of Wester ton v. Liddell. Yet during this period 
the Ritualists were by no means asleep or idle. They were 
quietly pushing their way into many a hitherto peaceful 
parish, causing in numerous instances heartburns, dissen 
sion, and frequently energetic opposition. " Altar Lights" 
were slowly introduced, and the way prepared for the 
use of the Romish vestments. Occasionally notes of de- 


fiance were heard from the Puseyite camp. The Rev. 
James Skinner, Senior Curate of St. Barnabas , wrote to 
the Times challenging a prosecution. "The worship of 
St. Barnabas / he said, "is the worship of the Church of 
England. We challenge this issue in the Courts of the 
Church of England, if any such there be. If it is not the 
worship of the Church of England, the sooner it is put 
down the better." l We do not hear challenges like this 
in the year 1900. The Ritualists now dread nothing so 
much as prosecutions. A brother Curate of Mr. Skinner s 
at St. Barnabas , the well-known Rev. Charles Lowder, 
when opposition again arose in that parish, in 1854, was 
of a somewhat militant nature. A placard was being 
carried one day, about the parish, urging people to " Vote 
for Westerton," the Protestant Churchwarden, which greatly 
angered a youthful cousin of Mr. Lowder. " Charles," 
says his biographer, "bade him not to throw dirt or stones, 
but gave the boys sixpence to buy rotten eggs. They were 
not slow in using them, carrying the war into Ebury Street, 
and the bespattered sandwich complained to his em 
ployers, who speedily invoked the aid of the law against 
the assailants. Charles [Lowder] was interrogated, and 
took all the blame of inciting the boys to bedaub the 
inscription. Before the police magistrate he repeated 
publicly the admission of indiscretion and sorrow for it, 
which he had already made privately, and the case was 
dismissed, with more than acquiescence on the part of 
the prosecution." But the Bishop of London did not let 
Mr. Lowder off so easily, for he suspended him from his 
duties as Curate for six weeks, as a punishment for his 
offence, which he subsequently mitigated at the request 
of the Vicar, the Hon. and Rev. R. Liddell, who had 
succeeded to the Rev. W. ]. E. Bennett, then Vicar of 
Frome. The latter gentleman wrote to Mr. Lowder in 
his trouble : " I have no doubt I myself have done, or 
might have done, a similar thing." 2 

In the month of January 1853 a controversy arose be 
tween Bishop Spencer (late of Madras), Assistant-Bishop to 

1 Charles Lowder : A Biography, 1st edition, p. 49. 

2 Ibid. pp. 57-60. 


the Bishop of Bath and Wells, and the Rev. G. A. Denison, 
Archdeacon of Taunton, and Examining Chaplain to the 
Bishop of Bath and Wells. It arose in this way. A young 
Deacon, the Rev. William F. Fisher, wrote to Bishop 
Spencer to inform him that Archdeacon Denison had re 
fused to present him for priest s orders at his lordship s next 
Ordination, on the ground that he held views as to the 
Lord s Supper, which, in the Archdeacon s opinion, were 
erroneous. To this the Bishop replied, giving at some 
length his own views as to the Real Presence, which were 
decidedly Protestant, and then he wrote to the Archdeacon 
on the subject. After reminding him of an interview he 
had had with him on April i5th, Dr. Spencer proceeded to 
say that : " It would be highly dishonest and improper on 
my part to ordain a candidate holding such an opinion " 
as that of Archdeacon Denison s. The latter gentleman 
replied, giving an outline of his doctrine : 

" To you, as a kind friend and a Bishop of the Church, I am 
ready to state, that I hold the doctrine of the Real Presence, as 
taught and declared by the Church of England, to be this : First, 
Negatively. That there is not a corporal presence of the Body and 
Blood of Christ in the Sacramental Bread and Wine; that the 
Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their very natural sub 
stances, and therefore may not be adored. 

" Secondly, Affirmatively. That there is a Real Presence of the 
Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacramental Bread and Wine, in a 
manner which, as Holy Scripture has not explained, the Church has 
not defined. That the Body and Blood of Christ, being really pre 
sent in the Sacramental Bread and Wine, are given in and by the 
outward sign to all, and are received by all." J 

Bishop Spencer, of course, was not satisfied with this 
explanation, which was followed by an intimation from the 
Archdeacon that if the Bishop attempted to counter-exam 
ine any of the candidates at the forthcoming ordination, he 
should " most positively " decline to have anything to do with 
the presentation of any of the candidates. The result was 
that Bishop Spencer resigned his commission as Episcopal 
Assistant to Bishop Bagot, and soon after Archdeacon 
Denison resigned the office of Examining Chaplain. When 

1 A Letter to the Bishop of Bath and Wells. By Bishop Spencer, pp. 20, 21. 
London : Rivington. 1853. 


writing his autobiography, the Archdeacon declared that 
the Bishop of Bath and Wells was in error in supposing 
that he had imposed, " of my own authority," his doctrine 
of the Real Presence on the candidates for Holy Orders. 1 
This was not an absolute, but a qualified denial of the 
charge. He admits that he did impose his doctrine as to 
Baptismal Regeneration on all the candidates, refusing to 
pass those who did not accept it. In conduct like this we 
discover one of the reasons why there are so few Evangelical 
candidates for the Ministry at the present time. It is no 
easy matter, in some cases, for an Evangelical of decided 
views to pass an examination at the hands of men who 
are advanced Romanisers, as, unfortunately, several Ex 
amining Chaplains are. 

Soon after these events, Archdeacon Denison preached 
in Wells Cathedral three sermons on the Real Presence, 
which led to legal proceedings being taken against him for 
false doctrine. They were preached respectively on August 
7, 1853, November 6, 1853, and May 14, 1854. The pro 
secutor was the Rev. Joseph Ditcher, Vicar of South Brent, 
Somerset. These sermons were subsequently published 
by the Archdeacon. As the Bishop of Bath and Wells was 
patron of the living of East Brent, of which the Archdeacon 
was Vicar, it was necessary to apply to the Archbishop of 
Canterbury to issue a Commission of Inquiry. On Novem 
ber 3, 1854, his Grace served on the defendant a formal 
notice that the Commission would shortly be appointed, 
but it did not meet until January 3, 1855, when the proceed 
ings lasted four days. On January loth, the Commissioners 
reported that there were prima facie grounds for proceed 
ing. In the unanimous opinion of the Commissioners : 
"The proposition of the Venerable the Archdeacon, that 
to all who come to the Lord s Table, to those who eat and 
drink worthily, and to those who eat and drink unworthily, 
the Body and Blood of Christ are given, and that by all 
who come to the Lord s Table, by those who eat and drink 
worthily, and by those who eat and drink unworthily, the 
Body and Blood of Christ are received, is directly contrary 
or repugnant to the doctrine of the Church of England, 

1 Archdeacon Denison s Notes of My Life, p. 230. 


and especially to the Articles of Religion, and that the doc 
trines set forth in the aforesaid sermons, with reference to 
the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist, are unsupported 
by the Articles taken in their literal and grammatical sense, 
are contrary to the doctrines and teaching of the Church of 
England, and have a very dangerous tendency." l The 
passage from the Archdeacon s sermon thus selected for 
condemnation is found in the first of the three sermons 
objected against. 2 

After the finding of the Commissioners, several legal 
difficulties arose in the way of proceeding with the case, 
but eventually these were overcome. The case was argued 
on its merits at the Guildhall, Bath, on July 22, 1856, and 
the five following days, before the Archbishop of Canter 
bury, Dr. Lushington, the Rev. Dr. Heurtley (Margaret 
Professor of Divinity at Oxford), and the Dean of Wells. 
After the hearing the Court adjourned, and on August i2th 
Dr. Lushington delivered an interlocutory judgment con 
demning the Archdeacon, but allowing him time until 
October ist to revoke his errors. As this judgment was 
subsequently confirmed by the Court, it is important to give 
here the following extract from it, condemning Archdeacon 
Denison s doctrine on the Real Presence: 

"Whereas it is laid in the said ninth article filed in this pro 
ceeding, that the said Archdeacon, in a sermon preached by him 
in the Cathedral Church of Wells, on or about Sunday, August 7, 
1853, did advisedly maintain and affirm doctrines directly contrary 
and repugnant to the 25th, 28th, and 29th Articles of Religion, re 
ferred to in the statute of 13 Eliz., c. 12, or some or one of them. 
Among other things, did therein advise, maintain, and affirm, 
4 That the Body and Blood of Christ, being really present after an 
immaterial and spiritual manner in the consecrated Bread and Wine, 
are therein and thereby given to all, and are received by all who 
come to the Lord s Table ; 3 and * That to all who come to the 
Lord s Table, to those who eat and drink worthily and to those who 
eat and drink unworthily, the Body and Blood of Christ are given ; 
and that by all who come to the Lord s Table, by those who eat and 

1 Guardian, January 17, 1855, p. 57. 

2 The Real Presence. A Sermon Preached on August 7, 1853. By George 
A. Denison, Archdeacon of Taunton, p. 20. London : Masters. 1853. 

3 Ibid. p. 1 8. 


drink worthily and by those who eat and drink unworthily, the Body 
and Blood of Christ are received his Grace, with the assistance 
and unanimous concurrence of his Assessors, has determined that 
the doctrine in the said passages is directly contrary and repugnant 
to the 28th and 29th of the said Articles of Religion and the various 
statutes of Queen Elizabeth, and that the construction put upon the 
said Articles of Religion by the Venerable the Archdeacon of 
Taunton, viz., that the Body and Blood of Christ become so joined 
to and become so present in the Consecrated Elements by the act of 
consecration, that the unworthy receivers receive in the elements the 
Body and Blood of Christ, is not the true, nor an admissible con 
struction of the said Articles of Religion ; that such doctrines are 
directly contrary and repugnant to the 28th and 2Qth Articles, and 
that the true and legal exposition of the said Articles is, That the 
Body and Blood of Christ are taken and received by the worthy 
receivers only, who, in taking and receiving the same by faith, do 
spiritually eat the Flesh of Christ and drink the Blood of Christ ; 
whilst the wicked and unworthy, by eating the bread and drinking 
the wine without faith, do not in anywise eat, take, or receive the 
Body and Blood of Christ, being void of faith, whereby only the 
Body and Blood of Christ can be taken, eaten, and received. . . . 

"Whereas it is pleaded in the said i4th article filed in these 
proceedings, that divers printed copies of the sermons or discourses, 
in the i2th article mentioned as written or printed, or caused to 
be printed, by the said Archdeacon, were, by his order and direction, 
sold and distributed, in the years 1853 and 1854, within the said 
diocese of Bath and Wells ; and whereas the said sermon or dis 
course contains the following amongst other passages : And to all 
who come to the Lord s Table, to those who eat and drink worthily, 
and to those who eat and drink unworthily, the Body and Blood of 
Christ are given ; and that by all who come to the Lord s Table, by 
those who eat and drink worthily, and by those who eat and drink 
unworthily, the Body and Blood of Christ are received ; and It is 
not true that the consecrated bread and wine are changed in their 
natural substance, for they remain in their very natural substance, 
and therefore may not be adored. It is true that worship is due to 
the Real, though invisible and supernatural presence of the Body 
and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist, under the form of Bread 
and Wine his Grace, with the assistance of his Assessors, has 
determined that the doctrines of the said passages are directly 
contrary and repugnant to the 28th and 2pth of the said Articles of 
Religion mentioned in the various statutes of Queen Elizabeth." 1 

1 Guardian, August 13, 1856, pp. 649, 650. 


On October 22, 1856, the Court again met, when the 
Archdeacon was called upon to retract his errors. He 
delivered a paper of explanations, which the Court con 
sidered a mere reiteration of his offence, after which the 
Archbishop of Canterbury s judgment was read by the 
Registrar, confirming and approving the interlocutory 
judgment of August 12, and concluding as follows : 

" Having maturely deliberated upon the proceedings had therein, 
and the offence proved, exacting by law deprivation of ecclesiastical 
promotion, [we] have thought fit to pronounce, and do accordingly 
pronounce, decree, and declare, that the said Venerable George 
Anthony Denison, by reason of the premises, ought by law to be 
deprived of his ecclesiastical promotions, and especially of the 
said Archdeaconry of Taunton, and of the said Vicarage and Parish 
Church of East Brent, in the county of Somerset, Diocese of Bath 
and Wells, and Province of Canterbury, and all profits and benefit 
of the said Archdeaconry, and of the said Vicarage and Parish 
Church, and of and from all and singular the fruits, tithes, rents, 
salaries, and other ecclesiastical dues, rights, and emoluments 
whatsoever, belonging and appertaining to the said Archdeaconry, 
and to the said Vicarage and Parish Church ; and we do deprive 
him thereof accordingly by this our definite sentence or final decree, 
which we read and promulgate by these presents." l 

The Archdeacon at once gave notice of appeal against 
this judgment, and bitterly complained afterwards that the 
Court did not give him credit for his assertion, in his 
sermons, that he taught that while in Communion the good 
and wicked eat the same Body and Blood of Christ, the 
one eats it to his salvation, while the other eats it to his 
damnation. But surely this statement in no way affected 
the charge brought against him, which had nothing to do 
with the results of eating, but with the reality of what is 
eaten. And so the Archdeacon appealed to the Arches 
Court, but when the case came before that Court, on 
April 20, 1857, it was found that it was not an appeal on 
the merits of the case, but an attempt to evade punishment 
by raising a side issue. It was pleaded by the Counsel for 
Archdeacon Denison that all the proceedings in the case 
were null and void, because more than two years had elapsed 

1 Guardian, October 29, 1856, p. 840. 


between the commission of the last alleged offence, and 


the citation to appear before the Archbishop at Bath, 
contrary to the Act under which the prosecution was under 
taken. On April 23, 1857, the Dean of Arches gave judgment 
in favour of the Archdeacon. Mr. Ditcher, the prose 
cutor, appealed to the Judicial Committee of Privy Council, 
which gave its judgment on February 6, 1858, dismissing 
the appeal, but carefully guarding itself by the state 
ment : " Of course it is understood that upon the question 
of heterodoxy, the question whether the respondent [Arch 
deacon Denison] has at any time uttered heretical doctrine 
or committed any ecclesiastical offence, their lordships 
have intimated no opinion." l 

The Archdeacon was afraid to make an appeal on the 
merits of the case, and therefore the judgment of the 
Court at Bath still remains an unrefuted exposition of the 
law of the Church of England, which has in no way been 
upset by the Bennett judgment. Indeed, the Archdeacon, 
in later life, seems to have held the Bennett judgment in 
as great contempt as the Archbishop s judgment at Bath. 
"The Judicial Committee of Privy Council," he said, "has 
done what it could, first in the Gorham case, then in the 
Bennett case, to ruin the teaching of the Doctrine of the 
Sacraments." 2 And what, it may be asked, were the 
Archdeacon s reasons for not appealing, on the merits of 
the case, from the Archbishop s judgment at Bath, depriving 
him of his living, as a teacher of doctrine condemned by 
the Church whose bread he ate? He writes : 

" I despised throughout the imputation that I was shielding 
myself under legal objections, when, if I had been an honest 
man, I ought to have waived all such things and gone at once to 
the merits. I despised the imputation as dishonest: I laughed 
at it as ridiculous. If there had been so much as the shadow of 
a shade of a decently fair tribunal, rather I should say, if there 
had been any tribunal in England recognised by the constitution 
in Church and State as competent to pronounce in matter of 
Doctrine (the same has to be said now [in 1878] in respect of 
matter of Worship), I might possibly have considered about taking 

1 Brodrick and Freemantle s Judgments of the Privy Council, p. 175. 

2 Denison s Notes of My Life, p. 192. 


the case simpliciter upon its * merits. But fairness and competency 
were alike lacking." * 

In other words, Denison would appeal against the Bath 
judgment on " its merits " when a Court came into existence 
which would take his side. A very convenient policy for 
the defendant, no doubt, but one which can only be allowed 
in a country where law has ceased to exist, and every man 
is allowed to do that which is right in his own eyes. It is 
evident from what he said that, if every existing Court of 
Law in England had given judgment against him, the Arch 
deacon would have been as much a rebel as he was to the 
Bath judgment. There was not, it seems, in 1856, in 
existence a tribunal " competent to pronounce in matter 
of doctrine ; " and, in 1878, when he wrote his Notes of My 
Life, matters were still worse, for then there did not exist a 
Court competent to pronounce a judgment even " in re 
spect of matter of worship." Of course, all this sort of talk 
was simply the language of an anarchist, which left every 
clergyman in the Church free to be a law unto himself. 
The Ritualists are acting on the lines of Archdeacon Denison 
at the present moment, and frankly tell us that even the 
Church of England, as a whole, has no power to forbid cer 
tain Romish doctrines and practices which they hold dear, 
though they are disliked and opposed by the overwhelming 
majority of loyal Churchmen. We have been reminded 
again and again of late that the Church of England is not 
an independent Church, but is subject to the rest of what 
is somewhat vaguely termed " the Catholic Church." The 
Archbishop s Court at Bath was a purely spiritual Court ; 
yet it was treated with as much contempt and rebellion as 
though it were the most Erastian tribunal ever set up by a 
State anxious to oppress the Church. 

No sooner was Archdeacon Denison condemned than a 
great hue and cry was heard throughout the length and 
breadth of the land. The Puseyites were furious ; but all 
they could do was to rally round the Archdeacon and prac 
tically, though not in so many words, declare : " We are 
one with you. There shall be not one rebel, but a small 

i Denison s Notes of My Life, p. 242. 


army of rebels on your side." Dr. Pusey boldly wrote : 
" The only course open to us is, publicly to apprise those 
in authority over us, that we cannot obey them in this, and to 
go on as before, leaving it to them to interfere with us, or no, 
as they may think fit." x This was done by means of the cele 
brated Protest against the Bath judgment, signed by Pusey, 
Keble, Bennett, Carter, Neale, Isaac Williams, and other 
members of the party. Those who signed this document 
identified themselves with the views for which Denison had 
been condemned, and appealed against the Archbishop s 
judgment, not to any existing Court of Law, which they 
knew very well would condemn them, but "to a lawful 
Synod of all the Churches of our communion," which had 
no existence, and which, as a matter of fact, has had no 
existence from that day to this. These protesters against 
Protestantism affirmed their belief that : " The wicked, 
although they can in no wise be partakers of Christ, nor 
spiritually eat His Flesh and drink His Blood/ yet do in 
the Sacrament not only take, but eat and drink unwor 
thily to their own condemnation the Body and Blood of 
Christ, which they do not discern." Surely this is a self- 
contradictory paragraph ? If, as is here clearly asserted, 
the wicked "eat and drink" the Body and Blood of Christ, 
surely they must at the same time be "partakers of Christ," 
whom they are supposed to have eaten with their bodily 
mouths. The protesters also declared : "We appeal from 
the said opinion, decision, or sentence of his Grace, in 
the first instance, to a free and lawful Synod of all the 
Churches of our communion, when such by God s mercy 
may be had." 2 

Of course, this Protest against the Bath judgment was 
equivalent to a challenge to those in authority to prosecute 
the men who signed it. It is much to be regretted that the 
challenge was not accepted. I have no doubt whatever 
that the final decision would have been against the Roman- 
isers, and an effectual blow would thus have been inflicted 
on the Puseyites, from which they would not have re 
covered. But our rulers in the Church of England have 

1 Life of Dr. Pusey, vol. iii. p. 444. 

2 Ibid. pp. 440-442. 


never been noted for an excess of courage, and so they let 
the grand opportunity slip by. Will it ever come again ? 

The year 1855 witnessed the formation of the first secret 
Society of the Romanisers. The Society of the Holy Cross 
was formed on February 28, 1855, and its first secret 
Synod was held on the 3rd of the following May. From 
the very first it loved darkness rather than light, dreading 
nothing so much as publicity. As its Master said, at its 
Synod, held in May 1876 : "The bond of union between 
the Brethren was to be as strict as possible. None but 
themselves were to know their names, or of the existence of 
the Society, except those to whom it might be named to 
induce them to join : but this only with leave of the 
Society." l For the first eight years of its existence its 
statutes and rules existed only in manuscript ; the authori 
ties were afraid to commit them to print. The names of 
the Brethren for the first ten years " were only to be found 
in a written book kept by the Secretary " ; 2 and when, at 
last, in 1865, they w r ere printed for the first time, every care 
was taken to prevent a copy falling into Protestant hands, 
a precaution which is still adopted, for there is nothing the 
members more dread than that their names shall be known 
to the public. The Society of the Holy Cross is very 
influential, and is more secret, more Romanising, and more 
dangerous now than ever it has been before. An exposure 
of its history and work, based on its own secret documents, 
may be read in the second chapter of my Secret History of 
the Oxford Movement, and therefore I need not say anything 
more about it here. 

Two years later, in 1857, the Association for the Pro 
motion of the Unity of Christendom was formed by 
members of the Church of England, the Church of Rome, 
and the Greek Church. Its members are expected to pray 
that all those three Churches may become united and form 
one Church again. It would be a bad day for England 
were such a request granted. Some years after its forma 
tion the Pope ordered all the Roman Catholics to leave the 
Association, though I see from one of its recent reports 

1 S.S.C. Master s Address, May Synod, 1876, p. 2. 

2 Ibid. p. 4. 


that some Roman Catholics are still members. Since the 
publication of my Secret History of the Oxford Movement, 
in the tenth chapter of which the Romanising character 
of this organisation is proved from its own documents, 
some startling revelations as to its early history have been 
given to the world in the Life and Letters of Ambrose 
Phillipps de Lisle, who was one of its principal founders. 
The way had been carefully prepared for the formation 
of such an Association. In 1857 Ritualism had made con 
siderable progress. A Roman Catholic barrister, writing 
to the Union a new paper representing the advanced 
Romanisers remarked : "The Oxford Movement is still 
doing its work, and spreading the true principles of Angli 
canism ; which, if carried out, are, as all allow, almost 
identical with those of Catholicism. Go to such churches 
as St. Barnabas , Pimlico ; and St. Mary, Osnaburg Street 
(both of which I have recently visited to see with my own 
eyes, and to judge for myself, instead of letting the con 
verts judge for me, as they do for most Catholics) and tell 
me in what they differ from our own? By this time 
Roman Catholic Vestments had been restored by a small 
section of the clergy, and the Mass, though as yet without 
the name, was exalted in certain quarters as highly as in 
the Church of Rome. 

"Our firm conviction," said the Union, in a leading article, "is 
that, until the Sacrifice of the Altar takes its legitimate and appointed 
place in our Sunday worship, we shall only remain hampered by 
Puritan traditions, and be hindered in our great work of Catholicising 
England. If this were done, the charge about unlighted Altars and 
unstoled priests would fall to the ground. Those who are led to 
underrate this revival must seek to accomplish it effectually. Every 
thing should give place to this. The Altar should be duly raised 
and effectively vested and adorned. Cross, lights, flower vases, 
pictures, book-rest, chalice, and corporal should all be provided. 
The Sacred Vestments should be used to distinguish the ordinary 
office from the Tremendous Sacrifice. Then shams and empty 
ceremonies, table prayers/ Ten Commandments, and the form 
and ceremony of going to the Altar to read the Epistle and 

1 Union, August 14, 1857, p. 102. 


Gospel would cease to be perpetuated. Then would our flocks 
learn what true worship is." l 

The anxiety herein manifested to get rid of the Ten 
Commandments, as a part of the service called "the 
Sacrifice of the Altar/ is very instructive. It shows that 
the Ritualists are not on terms of good friendship with 
them. They must feel very uncomfortable when, in church 
as I have frequently witnessed a clergyman reads out 
the Second Commandment against the use of images in 
worship, while the ends of his surplice are, perhaps, touch 
ing one of the God-condemned articles, let in to the frontal 
of the Communion Table, while other images are seen 
scattered throughout the chancel. In these dangerous days 
we may well be thankful for the law of the Church, which 
commands the placing of the Ten Commandments in a 
prominent position in every parish church, from which, 
alas ! many Ritualistic priests remove them, thus showing 
themselves to be the enemies of God and the Church. 

Next to the so-called "Sacrifice of the Altar," the 
Romanisers threw considerable energy, at this time, into 
propagating the Confessional. Nothing of a modified 
character would please them : they must have Auricular 
Confession as in the Roman Catholic Church, or go 
without it altogether. In a leading article, the new organ 
of the advanced section boldly and unblushingly de 
clared : 

" Every one knows that the only difference between Confession 
in the Roman and English Churches is that, in the former, it is 
compulsory ; and in the latter not so. The mode of making and 
receiving a Confession is substantially identical ; the same questions 
are asked ; the same kind of penances given ; the same consolation 
offered ; and it appears to us somewhat dishonest to pretend that it 
is otherwise." 2 

A month later the Union repeated its assertion, which, 
unfortunately, is as true now as when first uttered, except 
that the word " Ritualists " should be substituted for 
"England": "We continue to maintain that there is 

1 Union, December 4, 1857, p. 353. 

2 Ibid. August 20, 1858, p. 540. 


no virtual distinction between the doctrine of Rome and 
England as regards the Ordinance of Confession." 1 

In this way the Romeward Movement was being actively 
carried on. The Church of England was being made ready 
to reunite with Rome, by teaching Roman doctrine and, 
as far as possible, turning the parish churches into imita 
tions of Roman Catholic places of worship. The work had, 
as we have seen, been really going on ever since 1833, but 
now the time had arrived when the conspirators felt them 
selves powerful enough to band together into a society, 
having for its real object the submission of the Eastern 
churches and the Church of England unto the Church of 
Rome. But before such an organisation could be founded, 
a great deal of subtlety had to be called into action, and, 
above all, the Pope and his Propaganda had to be con 
sulted. Of course, all the preliminary work had to be done 
in the dark, and the utmost possible secrecy was enjoined on 
all who were called upon to organise the new, daring, and 
united movement towards Rome. The negotiations with 
the Propaganda at Rome were undertaken by Mr. Ambrose 
Phillipps de Lisle, as a devout and humble servant of the 
Pope. On May 18, 1857, he wrote a long and confidential 
letter on the subject to Cardinal Barnabo, Prefect of the 
Propaganda : 

" I write to you," said De Lisle, " most eminent and reverend 
Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church, concerning a matter of great 
importance, but of great secrecy and delicacy, which I humbly pray 
your Eminence to lay before our most holy Lord the Pope. I will 
briefly explain the matter if you will give me your ear. 

"There is at this moment a large party in the Established Church 
of this realm (called the Anglican Cnurch) which have conceived 
the idea of reuniting their National Church with the holy Mother 
Catholic, and also of placing the same under canonical obedience to the 
authority of the holy Apostolic See, which for three hundred years 
heretical malice has so miserably delighted to cast away. 

" Persons of great dignity, who are the heads of this party, with 
whom I am related either by blood or by marriage or by friendship 
have communicated their idea to me, and their longing, begging me 

1 Union, September 17, 1858, p. 601. 


to open and reveal to your Eminence the matter, in order to its being 
known to his Holiness the Pope, and if it be lawful to beg of him in 
all humility his Apostolic blessing upon the matter taken up and 
already begun. 

"These persons have designated me, although unworthy, to 
communicate this business to the Holy See, partly because they 
wished to act most secretly on account of the intimate relations of 
their Church with the civil power of this realm, and because Her 
Majesty s Government at this moment is directed by Viscount 
Palmerston, a man by no means friendly to the Catholic Church 
and things Catholic; partly because they were unwilling on account 
of political reasons to divulge the matter to our holy Father the 
Archbishop Cardinal of Westminster, our Catholic Primate, there 
being a certain suspicion in existence, not without natural causes, 
between the National Anglican Church and the local Catholic 
Church, as your Eminence will easily apprehend. 

"This Party, therefore, wish to show your Eminence their sincere 
desire to reconcile as soon as possible their own Church with the 
Holy See. But so great an undertaking cannot be carried through 
all at once. The Party which has taken up the matter numbers 
two thousand priests and ten Bishops, joined together in this idea. 
. . . Now the ten Bishops who favour union are Salisbury, Oxford, 
Chichester, London, Exeter, in England, all in the Province of 
Canterbury ; the other four are in Scotland, the Bishop of Brechin 
with three others. To these Bishops are united two thousand priests, 
amongst whom ,are some Archdeacons, Deans, and Canons, some 
Rectors of Collegiate Churches, others parish priests and vicars. To 
this section of the Anglican clergy belong a very large body of men 
of the richest and noblest families of the realm, amongst whom are 
some most illustrious persons very closely bound to myself, who held 
office under the Crown in 1852, in the Government of the Earl of 
Derby. They have made it known to me that they wish the busi 
ness begun to succeed. 

"Accordingly, this Party of the Anglican Church humbly desires 
ecclesiastical reunion of the National Church of the whole British 
Empire with the holy Catholic Mother, by embracing without any 
ambiguity all the articles denned in the sacred Council of Trent and 
the whole Orthodox Faith ; also the latest definition of the Immacu 
late Conception of our Lady, the holy Virgin Mary, Mother of God ; 
and by submitting their Church to the divine authority of the holy 
Apostolic See, with all affection of the heart and most faithful 
canonical obedience. 

" But, as your Eminence will easily understand, this Party in the 



National Anglican Church, as yet a minority in the whole kingdom, 
can for the present do no more than, with all prudence but zeal, 
dispose the people to take up so grand an object in the future . . . 
For such an end they already teach amongst the people the whole of 
the Catholic doctrine, not less explicitly than we Catholics ourselves 
are able to do it, and with the greatest reverence. It is indeed 
wonderful, and for so many centuries quite unhoped for ! They 
teach the Sacrifice of the Mass, the true presence and Transubstan- 
tiation, the oblation of the most holy Body and Blood of our Lord 
for the quick and the dead ; the Invocation of the Blessed Virgin 
and the Saints, the veneration of sacred images; also, so far as they 
prudently can, concerning the Primacy of the holy Apostolic See . . . 
Whatever may come to pass, they requested me to lay the matter 
before your Eminence, O most excellent Cardinal, requesting your 
generous prayers for its success, and also (if it be lawful) desiring 
with their whole heart and soul some word of encouragement from our 
most holy Lord the Supreme Pontiff that all things may turn out 
well." 1 " 

No doubt the writer of this very remarkable letter was 
an enthusiast in the cause to which he had devoted his life, 
and somewhat too hopeful as to the immediate future, and 
I think he was probably misinformed as to the English 
Bishops being a party to the scheme. Yet I have no doubt 
that he was perfectly sincere in conveying this information 
to Cardinal Barnabo, and that he had only too much reason 
for rejoicing at what was being done in the English Church 
by the traitors within her camp, whose dearest and dis 
graceful ambition it was to hand her over, bound hand and 
foot, to the bondage of her bitterest enemy, the Church of 
Rome. Mr. De Lisle soon received a favourable reply from 
Cardinal Barnabo, who wrote to him : 

"Mosx HONOURED SIR, The subject brought to my notice by 
your letter of the i8th of May last has given me the deepest consola 
tion. For nothing could be better, or more in accordance with my 
prayers as Prefect of this Sacred Congregation, than the accom 
plishment of the designs which your letter declares to be of not 
insuperable difficulty. 

" And this matter, which I at once commend in my prayers to 
the Omnipotent God, I shall be most happy to place before our 

1 Life and Letters of Ambrose Phillipps de Lisle, vol. i. pp. 375-377. 


most holy Lord Pius IX. on his return to Rome, so that what is 
already a subject of hope may soon be brought to a happy issue for 
the glory of God and the eternal salvation of souls. 

"Moreover, I return my thanks over and over again, and I 
shall pray for all things to turn out favourably according to our 

" Your Lordship s most obliged, 


With this encouraging letter in his possession, De Lisle 
next approached Dr. Newman, and laid the whole plan, in 
strict secrecy, before him, asking for his opinion and 
guidance. Newman replied : " I thank you very much for 
your most confidential letter, and the very interesting infor 
mation it contains. ... I am still somewhat uneasy lest per 
sons who ought to be Catholics should allow themselves to 
bargain and make terms. Should not they have some pre 
sumption from the Holy See or in some formal way 
surrender themselves ? " 2 There is something mysterious 
as to what Newman meant when he asked thus, " Should 
not they have some presumption from the Holy See ? " 
Three days before this he wrote to De Lisle : " I perfectly 
agree with you in thinking that the Movement of 1833 is 
not over in the country, whatever be the state of Oxford 
itself ; also, / think it is for the interest of Catholicism that 
individuals should not join us, but should remain to leaven the 

have individual souls, and with what heart can I do any 
thing to induce them to preach to others, if they themselves 
thereby become castaways ? " 3 

Thus encouraged, with the approval of the Cardinal 
Prefect of the Propaganda and Dr. Newman, the con 
spirators held a meeting in London on July 4, 1857, at 
which they passed the following six resolutions (to be sent 
to the Pope), which were kept as a profound secret from 
the public for forty-two years, until the publication of De 
Lisle s biography, at the close of 1899. I can understand 

1 Life and Letters of Ambrose Phillipps de Lisle, vol. i. p. 378. 

2 Ibid. p. 369. Ibid. p. 368. 


Roman Catholics voting for these resolutions, but how 
English Church clergymen, with a spark of common honesty, 
could approve of them is more than I can comprehend : 

" i. To express their gratitude and respect for the person of his 
Eminence they vote a golden chalice studded with jewels and a 
paten of beaten Australian gold, to be presented to Cardinal 
Barnabo as a pledge of the hoped-for Reunion between the English 
and Roman Churches. 

" 2. To carry out the wishes expressed in the Cardinal s letter, 
they determine never to rest until they have done everything possible 
to reunite the said two Churches, AND RESTORE THE AUTHORITY OF 

"3. They express the opinion that after the lapse of some years 
the plan will become feasible. 

" 4. They resolve that a treatise, exact, statistical, and historical, 
dealing with the vexed question of Anglican Orders, shall be drawn 
up by one of their own body, and submitted to Pope Pius IX. for his 
supreme and authoritative judgment. 

" 5. They propose to organise a select body of learned preachers 
to bring forward, and expound and recommend, the godly reunion 
of all dissident Churches with their holy Catholic Mother Church, 
in all Churches and Colleges and Cathedrals where the Bishop s 
licence to do so can be obtained. 

"6. They propose to establish a Society or Association of Prayer 
to promote this sacred object, of which the only obligation shall be to 
recite daily the Lord s Prayer once, and the Liturgical Prayer for 
Peace and Unity, ut ecclesiam secundum Voluntatem Tuam pacificare 
et coadunare dignerisj and beg of his Holiness to attach an Indul 
gence to this prayer, to be extended even to Anglicans not in external 
communion with the Holy See, should it seem good and be within 
the limits of the power of the Supreme Pontiff to do so." * 

It must be admitted by every honest man that these 
resolutions were a disgrace to every member of the 
Church of England who agreed to them. The Oxford 
Movement has no reason to be proud of those of her 
children who thus acted in a way which puts to shame 
every idea of honesty and honour. And so " to promote 
this sacred object," of bringing the English Church to bow 
the neck once more to Rome, the Association for the 

1 Life and Letters of Ambrose Philiipps de Lisle, vol. i. pp. 379, 380. 


Promotion of the Unity of Christendom was actually 
founded, at a private meeting held in the parish of St. 
Clement Danes, Strand, London, on September 8, 1857. 
Since then it has continued its Romeward progress, and 
although, as I write, Mr. De Lisle s biography has been 
before the public for ten months, I have yet to learn that 
the A.P.U.C. has uttered one word of censure of the docu 
ment which led to its formation, or denied its authenticity. 
Scores of churches are placed at its disposal every year 
for celebrations of Holy Communion on behalf of its 
objects. It is understood to have over 10,000 clerical and 
lay members scattered throughout the English Church, 
but nobody knows who they are, except the officials at 
its head office in London. 

The Hon. and Rev. Robert Liddell, who succeeded Mr. 
Bennett as Vicar of St. Paul s, Knightsbridge, was quite as 
far removed from Protestantism as his predecessor. In 
stead of diminishing he added to the Ritual and ornaments 
of the Church. Intense dissatisfaction was created in the 
parish by these changes, and at last the parishioners decided 
to elect a Protestant Churchwarden to look after their 
interests. The gentleman they selected was Mr. Westerton, 
who had all the courage of his convictions, and soon made 
things very uncomfortable for the Vicar. Early in 1854 
Mr. Westerton wrote to the Bishop of London (Dr. Blom- 
field) requesting him to order the removal of certain 
ornaments from St. Paul s Church ; but this the Bishop 
declined to do, pleading that he doubted whether he pos 
sessed the power to order their removal, except through 
a decree in the Consistory Court. Some of the ornaments 
complained of were, he believed, not illegal. At about the 
same time Mr. Beal, a resident in the district of St. Bar 
nabas, Pimlico (a District Church in the charge of Mr. Lid- 
dell), applied to the Consistory Court for a monition to the 
Chapelwardens to remove certain ornaments from St. 
Barnabas Church. Mr. Westerton also applied to the 
same Court for a monition "as to the ornaments in St. 
Paul s Church. The two cases were argued together in the 
Consistory Court, and at length judgment was delivered 


by Dr. Lushington, on December 5, 1855. The following 
were the subjects with which he had to deal, together with 
his decisions thereon : 

1. A High Altar of carved wood, raised on platform in St. Paul s 
Church Being of wood, Legal. 

2. A High Altar of stone in St. Barnabas Church Illegal. 

3. A Credence Table Legal. 

4. Candlesticks and Candles, used when not needed for light 

5. Coloured Cloths on Communion Table changed according to 
the seasons I! legal. 

6. Embroidered lace cloths on Communion Table at time of 
Commun ion Illegal. 

7. Crosses Illegal. 

From this judgment Mr. Liddell appealed to the Court 
of Arches, where, on December 20, 1856, Sir ]. Dodson 
gave judgment confirming in every respect the judgment 
of the Consistory Court. Under these circumstances what 
was the Vicar to do ? Two purely Spiritual Courts had 
decided against him. There was only an appeal to the 
Judicial Committee of Privy Council open to him. But 
this Court was, in the estimation of the Puseyites, a purely 
State tribunal whose decisions had no weight in conscience. 
Yet if Caesar would only upset the decisions of the Spiritual 
Courts, then to Caesar they would go. It was not a con 
sistent position to take up there is not an atom of legal 
consistency in the whole Romeward Movement but it was 
a convenient one. To appeal to the Judicial Committee on 
such a subject was to acknowledge its competency and 
right to decide. So to the Judicial Committee Mr. Liddell 
went, hoping it would overthrow the Spiritual Courts 
authority, when blessings would be upon it ; but if it 
failed in this respect, why, then, the sooner the Judicial 
Committee was pulled down, and a Court of Appeal more 
favourable to the Ritualists erected in its place, the better 
it would be for the law-breaking clergy. 

The appeal of Mr. Liddell was heard before the Judicial 
Committee of Privy Council on February 9, 10, u, 12, 13, 
14, and 16, 1857. Judgment was delivered on the 2lst of 


March 1857. From it I give the following extracts, dealing 
with the seven points mentioned above : 

i and 2. Tables and Stone Altars. "The Rubric of the present 
Prayer-Book provides only that at the Communion time, the table, 
having a fair white linen cloth upon it, shall stand in the body of 
the Church or chancel, where Morning and Evening Prayer are 
appointed to be said ; and the priest is to commence the service 
standing at the north side of the table. The term Altar is never 
used to describe it, and there is an express declaration at the close 
of the service against the doctrine of Transubstantiation, with which 
the ideas of an Altar and Sacrifice are closely connected. Under 
these circumstances, the first question is, whether the stone struc 
ture at St. Barnabas is a Communion Table within the meaning 
of the Canons and the Rubric ; and their lordships are clearly of 
opinion that it is not . . . Their lordships, therefore, are satisfied 
that the decision upon this point [that Communion Tables must be 
made of wood] in Faulkener v. Litchfield is well founded, and they 
must advise her Majesty that the decree as to the removal of the 
stone structure at St. Barnabas, and the Cross upon it, and the sub 
stitution of a Communion Table of wood, ought to be affirmed." 

3. Credence Tables. For the text of the judgment on this sub 
ject, and a further extract on Altars, see above, chapter ix. p. 253. 
" As to the Credence Tables, their lordships therefore must advise 
a reversal of the sentence complained of." 

4. Candlesticks arid Caudles. The Consistory Court declared 
lights illegal when not needed for light, but did not order the 
removal of either candlesticks or candles. Their lordships now 
said : " The judgment complained of has not ordered the removal 
of the table [in St. Paul s] or of the candlesticks, but only of the 
Cross, the Credence Table, and the cloths. There is no appeal 
against this order as far as it permits the table and candlesticks to 
remain, and it is therefore not open to their lordships to consider 
the judgment with reference to the articles not ordered to be removed." 

5. Coloured Cloths on Communion Table. " In this case their 
lordships do not see any sufficient reason for interference, and they 
must therefore advise the reversal of the sentence as to the cloths 
used for the covering of the Lord s Table during the time of Divine 
Service, both with respect to St. Paul s and St. Barnabas." 

6. Embroidered Lace on Communion Table. " With respect to the 
embroidered linen and lace used on the Communion Table at the 
time of the ministration of the Holy Communion. The Rubric and 
the Canon prescribe the use of a fair white linen cloth, and both the 


learned Judges in the Court below have been of opinion that em 
broidery and lace are not consistent with the meaning of that expres 
sion, having regard to the nature of the table upon which the cloth is to 
be used. Although their lordships are not disposed in any case, to 
restrict within narrower limits than the law has imposed, the discretion 
which, within those limits, is justly allowed to congregations by the 
rules both of the Ecclesiastical and the Common Law Courts, the 
directions of the Rubric must be complied with : and upon the whole 
their lordships do not dissent from the construction of the Rubric 
adopted by the present decree upon this point ; and they must there 
fore advise her Majesty to affirm it." 

7. Crosses. "Upon the whole, their lordships, after the most 
anxious consideration, have come to the conclusion that Crosses, as 
distinguished from Crucifixes, have been in use, as ornaments of 
churches, from the earliest periods of Christianity ; that when used 
as mere emblems of the Christian faith, and not as objects of super 
stitious reverence, they may still lawfully be erected as architectural 
decorations of churches; that the wooden Cross erected on the 
Chancel screen of St. Barnabas is to be considered as a mere 
architectural ornament ; and that as to this article, they must advise 
her Majesty to reverse the judgment complained of." 

" Next, with respect to the wooden Cross attached to the Com 
munion Table at St. Paul s. Their lordships have already declared 
their opinion that the Communion Table intended by the Canon 
was a table in the ordinary sense of the word, flat and movable, 
capable of being covered with a cloth, at which or around which the 
communicants might be placed in order to partake of the Lord s 
Supper, and the question is, whether the existence of a Cross 
attached to the table is consistent with the spirit or with the letter of 
those regulations. Their lordships are clearly of opinion that it is 
not; and they must recommend that upon this point also the decree 
complained of should be affirmed." l 

By this appeal to the Judicial Committee of Privy 
Council, Mr. Liddell gained the following points: (i) The 
carved wood table in St. Paul s, (2) the Credence Table, 
(3) Coloured " Altar" cloths, changeable according to the 
seasons, (4) the Cross on the Chancel Screen. On the 
other hand, it was declared by the highest Court of Appeal 
illegal (i) to erect a Stone Altar, (2) to use Embroidered 
Lace on the Communion Cloth, and (3) to erect a Cross 

1 The Judgment of the Judicial Committee in Liddell v. Westerton. Edited 
by A. F. Bayiord, LL.D., pp. 105-136. London: Butterworths. 1857. 


attached to the Communion Table. A fifth point, which 
was not appealed against, was that it was declared illegal to 
burn lights when not needed for light. As to how these 
points are affected by later judgments, it seems that they 
are all still illegal. The illegality of " Altar Lights" is not 
affected by the judgment of the Archbishop of Canterbury 
in the Lincoln Case, since his, as an inferior Court, could 
not upset the decision of the Judicial Committee in the case 
of Martin v. Mackonochie (1868). When the judgment of 
Archbishop Benson subsequently came before the Judicial 
Committee, their lordships did not reverse their previous 
judgment on lights given in 1868, and therefore it still 
stands as the declared law of the Church. 

To his credit be it recorded, Mr. Liddell at once 
accepted the judgment, and in a letter to his parishioners 
expressed his opinion that it had " clearly defined some 
points of ritual which were previously deemed ambiguous, 
and has established beyond contradiction the Church s 
Law, to which I, for one, have ever desired to yield loyal 
and unswerving obedience." l Not so, however, with all his 
brethren. There were rebels in their rank. One of these was 
the Rev. E. Stuart, Vicar of St. Mary Magdalene, Munster 
Square, and one of the founders of the English Church 
Union. To him, on March 5, 1858, the new Bishop of 
London (Dr. Tait) wrote : " I have very carefully con 
sidered what passed at my interview with you yesterday 
in London House, and I feel myself obliged to adhere to 
the opinion I then expressed. I must, therefore, lay my 
commands upon you to discontinue the practice you have 
introduced without any authority in St. Mary Magdalene, 
Munster Square, of lighting the candles on the Communion 
Table in broad daylight, except when they may reason 
ably be considered necessary or convenient for purpose of 
light." To this Episcopal command, Mr. Stuart, notwith 
standing his oath of obedience to his Bishop, bluntly and 
rebelliously replied : " I write to acknowledge the receipt 
of your letter of the 5th 4 instant, containing a command to 

1 A Letter to the Parishioners of St. Paul s, Knight sbridge. By the Hon. and 
Rev. Robert Liddell, pp. 3, 4. London : Hayes. 1858. 

2 Life of Archbishop Tait, vol. i. p. 220. 


me to discontinue the use of lights at the celebration of the 
Sacrament. / must respectfully decline to obey this command, 
as I believe that in issuing it you have (unintentionally, 
of course) transgressed the limits of that authority which 
the Church of England has committed to her Bishops. I 
believe that you have done this by forbidding what the law 
of the Church distinctly authorises." x To this Bishop Tait 
replied : " I greatly regret that you should think it right to 
disobey my command on your own private interpretation 
of what you deem to be the law. Had you read the 
judgment of the Privy Council in the Knightsbridge Case, 
and Dr. Lushington s previous judgment on the same, with 
the care that they deserve, you would, I doubt not, have 
seen your error as to the point of law." 2 The pity is that 
the Bishop did not prosecute this rebellious Vicar ; but he 
seems to have dreaded the trouble and worry, and conse 
quently Mr. Stuart was left to do as he liked, practically 
triumphant over his Bishop. This claim of Mr. Stuart to 
refuse obedience to a Bishop, if he, in the exercise of his 
own opinion, thinks he understands the Church s law as to 
doctrine and ritual better than the Bishop and all the 
Courts of Law, is still a very common one. Born of 
conceit, pride, and self-will, it ought not to be allowed. 
On this subject it may be well to quote here the wise words 
of Lord Stowell in his judgment on the Stone Case : 

" But that any clergyman should assume the liberty of inculcating 
his own private opinions, in direct opposition to the doctrines of the 
Established Church, in a place set apart for its own private worship, 
is not more contrary to the character of a National Church than to 
all honest and rational conduct. Nor is this restraint inconsistent 
with Christian liberty ; for to what purpose is it directed, but to 
ensure, in the Established Church, that uniformity which tends to 
edification ; leaving individuals to go elsewhere according to the 
private persuasions they may entertain. It is, therefore, a restraint 
essential to the security of the Church, and it would be a gross 
contradiction to its fundamental purpose to say, that it is liable to 
the reproach of persecution, if it does not pay its Ministers for 
maintaining doctrines contrary to its own." 3 

1 Life of Archbishop Tait, vol. i. p. 221. 2 Ibid. p. 222. 

3 Considerations on the Exercise of Private Judgment. By James Parker 
Deane, D.C.L., p. 43. London : Parker. 1845. 


The Convent Case at Lewes Charges against the Rev. J. M. Neale 
Riot at Lewes at the burial of a Sister of Mercy Bishop of 
Chichester s letters to Mr. Scobell and the Mother Superior The 
Bishop withdraws his patronage from St. Margaret s, East Grin- 
stead Threatening the Bishop Mr. Neale s pamphlet His under 
hand conduct Confession on the sly The Case of the Rev. Alfred 
Poole His licence withdrawn His admissions Remarkable 
assertions at a Communicants Meeting Mr. Poole appeals to the 
Archbishop of Canterbury His Judgment The Lavington Case 
Romanising books Theological Colleges Attack upon Cuddes- 
don College Mr. Golightly s Facts and Documents Showing the 
Alarming State of the Diocese of Oxford An exciting controversy. 

SOME events of minor importance, but not without interest, 
have now to be recorded. Considerable excitement was 
created at Lewes, Sussex, towards the close of the year 
1857, in consequence of the publication of a pamphlet by 
the Rev. John Scobell, Rector of All Saints, Lewes, and 
Hon. Canon of Chichester, containing serious charges 
against the Rev. ]. M. Neale, Chaplain and Father Con 
fessor of St. Margaret s, East Grinstead, Sisterhood. These 
charges were first privately made in a letter addressed to 
Mr. Neale by Mr. Scobell, in February 1857, an< ^ were as 
follows : 

" i. That you have been carrying on by letter, under cover to 
the Mistress of my Infants School, a clandestine correspondence 
with my eldest daughter while in my house. 

" 2. That you hold clandestine and secret meetings with her, of 
some hours duration, in the private apartments of my Infants 
Schoolhouse, situate in my parish of All Saints, Lewes. 

" 3. That you there usurp, dishonourably and unlawfully, the 
office of parish priest of All Saints, Lewes; wearing a surplice; 
exercising Liturgical offices ; receiving Confession and pronouncing 

"4. That you assume to yourself, and allow yourself to be 
viewed by my daughter and parishioner in the character of her 



spiritual guide and adviser, to my detriment as her natural parent 
and lawful parish priest ; that you receive in that character, at her 
hands, the letters of me, her father, for your perusal ; that you anim 
advert, and dictate how they shall be replied to how far complied 
with how far resisted. 

" 5. That you seek to hold and keep up a lasting spiritual 
influence over my daughter living in my house. That you seek to 
guide her future course of life. That your advice is to her, that she 
quit my house, that she persevere in demanding my consent to so 
doing, and that she join and give herself, and whatever income or 
property she may have, to an establishment, at or near East Grin- 
stead, or some other similar establishment ; and, under your 
guidance and tutelage, there to resign her will, her person, her 
services, her property, to your or others will and pleasure. 

"6. That in the prosecution of these designs you have never 
made one word of communication to me, her natural parent, the 
guide of her youth, and constituted spiritual pastor ; that the whole 
is clandestinely and surreptitiously carried on and continued now 
by letter during her absence from home, to the injury of my family 
peace and to the infringement of my public rights. 

" I make these charges distinctly and deliberately, and I ask for 
your distinct and definite reply." 1 

Mr. Neale formally acknowledged the receipt of Mr. 
Scobell s letter, stating that he declined replying to his 
questions, although his silence was not to be taken as 
an acquiescence in the correctness of his statements, but 
as taken from motives "of the most friendly character 
towards" Mr. Scobell. 

The facts of the case were not made public until the 
following December, after the funeral of Mr. Scobell s 
daughter, who died at St. Margaret s, East Grinstead, 
from fever, on November 13, 1857, a ^er she had been a 
Sister there for a few months. Great indignation was felt 
at Lewes when some of the circumstances became known, 
immediately after the young lady s death, and with the 
result that at her funeral, on November i8th which took 
place at Lewes something approaching to a riot took 
place. At the conclusion of the funeral service, the body 
having been buried in a vault within the Church, a dis- 

1 The Rev. J. M. Neale and the Institute of St. Margaret s, East Grinstead. 
Statement by the Rev. J. Scobell, p. 9. London : Nisbet & Co. 1857. 


graceful attack was made upon Mr. Neale and the Sisters 
of Mercy who accompanied him. Amid cries of " No 
Popery/ Mr. Neale was knocked down, and parts of the 
dresses of the Sisters were torn off, the whole party from 
East Grinstead being hustled about by the mob, until 
rescued by the police. Such conduct on the part of the 
Protestants was, I believe, wholly without excuse, and was 
a disgrace to the cause it was ostensibly got up to promote. 
There was grave cause for public indignation, but not for 
mob violence on defenceless women. 

About three weeks after this riot Mr. Scobell published 
the pamphlet containing the six charges against Mr. Neale, 
which I have quoted above. Meanwhile Mr. Scobell had 
received from the Bishop of Chichester a letter of sympathy, 
dated November 22nd: "You may," wrote his lordship, 
" be well assured of the deep-felt sympathy of every upright 
candidly religious man. I beg to offer you and your family 
the sincere expression of mine and Mrs. Gilbert s. I have 
felt it my duty to write to the Lady Superioress and the 
Society of St. Margaret s at East Grinstead, the letter, with 
a copy of which I thus briefly intrude upon your sorrows. 
He must be heartless who could have permitted himself to 
add to them as that infatuated man from East Grinstead 
has done " l (that is, Mr. Neale). To the Mother Superior 
of the Sisterhood the Bishop wrote as follows : 

PALACE, CHICHESTER, Nov. 21, 1857. 

" MADAM, Your Society was first formed as an association of 
ladies, who should engage themselves and train others to minister 
to the bodily wants of their fellow-Christians, by nursing them in 
sickness. Such an institution I regarded as praiseworthy and 
Christian in its object, and I authorised the use of my name in con 
nection with it. It has for some time past submitted itself to the 
unlimited influence of Mr. Neale, a clergyman, in whose views and 
practices it is well known I have no confidence. Especially it is 
well known that I deny that the Church of England sanctions the 
habitual practice of Confession. She acknowledges it only in rare 
and exceptional cases, and Mr. Neale is unwarranted in using it in 

1 The Rev. J. M. Neale and the Institute of St. Margaret s, East Grinstead. 
Statement by the Rev. J. Scobell, p. 13. The Lewes Riots. A Letter to the 
Bishop of Chichester. By the Rev. J. M. Neale, p. 36, 5th edition. London : 
Masters. 1857. 


the frequent and regular way in which he applies it. Those who 
admit such application of it to themselves, manifest thereby the 
inadequacy of their direct faith in Christ s promises. Their resort 
to this unauthorised remedy, by a righteous retribution, issues in a 
continuous increase of weakness, and an accumulation of obstruc 
tions in the way of the true influences of grace upon their hearts. 
They trust more and more in man, and are less and less able, 
without man, to hope in Christ, i.e. truly hope in Him. I desire, 
therefore, that henceforth neither you nor any of your Sisterhood 
will state that I approve of, or have any connection with, your 
Institution and Sisterhood of S. Margaret s. I desire that any 
circulars or printed copies of your rules in which my name is 
introduced, may be cancelled and not used with my name in future. 
Whatever expense is brought upon the Institution by the consequent 
loss of the copies you may have by you, I will fully repay. I remain, 
Madam, your faithful Pastor, 

(Signed) "A. T. CICESTR. 
" Miss GREAME, or the Lady Superioress 
of S. Margaret s, East Grinstead." 

On Sunday, November 29th, Mr. Scobell preached in 
All Saints Church, Lewes, a special sermon on the treat 
ment his deceased daughter had received at the hands of 
Mr. Neale, in the course of which he announced his inten 
tion to publish a narrative of what had taken place. On 
December 3rd the Mother Superior of St. Margaret s Con 
vent appeared at the door of the Palace of the Bishop of 
Chichester, and sent in a letter requesting an interview. 
This document has the appearance of having been written 
under dread of Mr. Scobell s forthcoming pamphlet. It 
was, in fact, a threatening letter, evidently written in the 
hope of frightening the Bishop into using his influence 
to prevent Mr. Scobell publishing his exposure. " Mr. 
Neale," wrote the Mother Superior to the Bishop, in the 
letter which she handed in at the door, "is extremely 
anxious to spare the feelings of that unhappy parent, and 
he hoped that after I had seen you, an arrangement would 
be made by which the public might be disabused of their 
false impressions without an exposure in the papers. 1 1 I do 
not wonder that the Bishop refused to see a lady who 
brought him such a threatening letter. But he wrote her 

1 The Lewes Riots. By the Rev. J. M. Neale, p. 37. 


a letter, which has not been published, to which the 
Mother Superior sent a rude and sneering reply. On 
December 2nd Mr. Neale himself wrote to the Bishop, 
expressing a hope that he would not compel him, "in 
absolute self-defence, to expose Mr. Scobell." 1 But the 
Bishop would not yield, so in a letter, bearing date De 
cember 4, 1857, Mr. Neale published his " exposure " 
of Mr. Scobell. In this pamphlet Mr. Neale quotes nume 
rous documents, amongst them being one he wrote to Miss 
Scobell, on January 21, 1855, containing the following 
statement : " I should advise you to act thus. To tell 
your father (perhaps it would be better to write it) that, 
while you shall always be ready to go to the very furthest 
length you can in obeying him, there are some points on 
which you feel that you have a higher duty. That you feel 
that you need that counsel from a priest, and that Absolu 
tion which the Church clearly allows you to have ; that 
you intend, however painful it must be to disobey him, to 
avail yourself of it." 2 On February 22, 1855, he wrote to 
her : " I cannot feel happy about the state in which 
matters stand as regards your father. It is a sad necessity 
(if it be a necessity) for me to write, as this letter must be 
sent, under cover, to a third person" 3 Again, on the 
following November 27th he wrote to her : "This kind 
of correspondence ought not to go on, because it is in 
your power to end it. Only be firm now, only insist on 
an answer, and one way or the other it will be terminated. 
/ never direct to you under cover to Miss Parker without 
pain." It may have caused him pain, but he continued 
to do it. The Miss Parker here mentioned was Mr. 
Scobell s Infant Schoolmistress. These letters, from which 
I have just quoted (published by Mr. Neale himself), fully 
prove Mr. Scobell s charge against him of "carrying on, 
by letter, under cover to the Mistress of my Infants 
School, a clandestine correspondence with my daughter 
while in my house." Mr. Neale did not dare to deny that 
he had " secret meetings " with Miss Scobell in her father s 
Infant School House, or that he there, vested in surplice, 

1 The Lewes Riots. By the Rev. J. M. Neale, p. 39. 

2 Ibid. p. 10. 3 Ibid. p. 10. 


clandestinely heard her Confessions, and never wrote a 
word himself to her father about it. Not until two years 
after her first Confession did Miss Scobell s father know the 
name of her Father Confessor, and even then not through 
her action, or that of Mr. Neale, but through a penitent 
letter from Miss M. B. Parker, the Infant Schoolmistress. 
She wrote to her Rector on February 10, 1857, to acknow 
ledge her double dealing : " I have for a long time," she 
said, "been labouring under the weight of an evil con 
science, inasmuch as I promised to be faithful to the trust 
placed in me by yourself with reference to one of your 
family. Out of kindness to Miss Scobell, I have been 
induced to allow her the use of my sitting-room, to meet 
a person [Mr. Neale] whom I never before saw in my 
life ; and what is more I deceived you in this thing, in 
that I ought to have told you, but I did not see the harm 
in it then, but I have since, and do now, to my sorrow." l 
On the receipt of this letter Mr. Scobell at once wrote to 
Mr. Neale the letter containing the six charges quoted 

And what, it will be asked, was Mr. Neale s defence ; 
what were the charges which he, in return, had to bring 
against Mr. Scobell ? Briefly, it was that he and the Sisters 
of Mercy who had enticed Miss Scobell into the Sisterhood, 
were justified in doing so, because Mr. Scobell had been 
tyrannical and unkind to his daughter. But on looking 
through the evidence produced, I find that the supposed 
tyranny consisted in a firm refusal to give his consent to 
his daughter going to Confession, or becoming a Sister of 
Mercy. And why should he be compelled to give his con 
sent, against both his reason and his conscience ? He was 
a decided Protestant, and conscientiously he believed that 
Auricular Confession and the Conventual life would not 
be for the spiritual benefit of his child. There was elo 
quence, faithfulness, and true fatherly affection in his letter 
to his daughter, on December 8, 1855, giving her his refusal 
to sanction her conduct in going to Confession to Mr. 

1 The Rev. /. M. Neale and the Institute of St Margaret s, East Grinstead. 
By the Rev. J. Scobell, p. 8. 


Neale, of which he had just heard from her, though he did 
not for long after know the name of her Confessor: 

" It is," he wrote to her, " my duty to tell you this, even if you 
give me an unwilling ear. You shall not sin in ignorance. But the 
question to myself is can I bear it ? For almost thirty years, God 
knows, I have lived for my children so did their mother. There 
was nothing we would not have denied ourselves and borne for them. 
But there are things which man or woman cannot resolve cannot 
effect. I do not feel it to be in my power to promise to bear what 
you now propose to me. For me to live at home without family 
privacy to live in fear and subjection to another man to live in 
the bondage of distrust to fear or to think it possible, that my own 
words, my private thoughts, my most unguarded actions, if they 
relate to you, are noting down, to be laid at the feet of another man 
by my kneeling, captive, misdoing daughter ! and this, a proposal, not 
for a week, for a month, but for years, and for life ! Tis more than 
I can promise to bear and endure with patience, with contentment, 
with reconciliation, with fulness of family love. ... Be wise, my 
dear Emily, in time. Retrace your steps. You have begun to do 
so in small things, advance upon greater. ... I must not write 
more ; my heart yearns to you. Dismiss secrets and secrecy ; 
never did good come of them when interrupting the natural love 
between father and child, husband and wife. Increase and renew 
your confidence. Put away jealousy and pride and every insubor 
dinate temper and practice, and seek without pain and without 
mortification to be loving and amiable, faithful and obedient. Do 
this ; pray for this ; obtain this, and all will be well. God will 
sanctify everything to your use and improvement. Be strong in 
faith, and you shall subdue these mountains. Be in spiritual bond 
age to no man. Live in patience and godly resolution, and be 
willing in your own sphere, and your own proper calling, to take 
up your cross daily, and follow the Lamb whither He goeth." l 

Is this, I ask, the letter of a tyrant, a cruel and unfeeling 
father ? Rather is it not full of affection and anxiety for 
the welfare of a beloved daughter ? It is certainly decided. 
Mr. Scobell was, undoubtedly, a firm man, and it may be 
that from time to time he manifested the irritability of 
firm men. He had to deal with a daughter who, being in 
her early childhood an invalid, had been petted and made 

1 A Reply to the Postscript of the Rev. John M. Neale. By the Rev. J. 
Scobell, p. 8. London : Nisbet. 1858. 

2 A 


much of by her affectionate father. When other children 
came he divided his love with them, with the result that this 
one became peevish, jealous, and often sulky. Mr. Neale 
further pleaded, in self-defence, that he had urged Miss 
Scobell to tell her father that she had been to Confession. 
Just so. He was quite willing that she should bear the 
brunt of her father s displeasure ; but he took good care, 
so far as he could, to keep himself safe from her father s 
wrath. There was nothing very courageous in this. On 
this point, it may be well to cite here the testimony of three 
trustworthy witnesses. The first is that of Hannah Potter, 
who made a special declaration on the subject, dated 
December n, 1857, in the course of which she said : 

"Miss Scobell first spoke to me of Confession as applying to 
some third person, and asked my opinion of it. Afterwards she told 
me it was herself, and said Mr. Neale had come to her, and she had 
made one Confession to him. She said it was a very hard and long 
Confession ; that he said he must know all or he could advise her in 
nothing. That she had drawn up a paper from four years old and 
upwards, and read it, as a Confession, to Mr. Neale. That she had 
suffered very much in doing this in body and mind, and from the 
questions arising out of it. Having done this she thought she had 
done all. But Mr. Neale said, No! having done thus much you 
must go on and continue to confess. If he would have been satis 
fied, I gathered from her that she would rather not. She wished to 
tell her father all this. At first Mr. Neale made no objection to 
this being told to her father ; but then he wrote and forbade his name 
being mentioned, and that was the reason why all Mr. Neale s letters 
were sent under cover to the Infant Schoolmistress, and not direct to 
her. Miss Scobell persevered in wishing and requesting that Mr. 
Neale s name should be made known to her father, with all else that 
had occurred. Mr. Neale opposed that, and promised at some future 
time to give the reason why, and added that if she did disclose his 
name contrary to his wishes, she might confess, but he would not 
absolve her. . . . After this her Confessions went on without inform 
ing her father." 1 

It makes one burn with indignation to thus witness this 
cowardly Father Confessor trying to suppress the honour- 

1 A Letter to the Rev. John M. Neale. By the Rev. John Scobell, p. 10. 
London: Nisbet. 1857. 


able desire in this young lady s breast to be open and above- 
board with her father. He had to resort to threats to 
accomplish his wishes, threats to withhold his absolution, 
which she was not strong enough to resist. Why was he 
ashamed and afraid to be found out ? He had no objection 
to act like a snake in the grass, but he trembled with a 
cowardly fear at exposure in the light of day. And now we 
come to the testimony of Miss Parker, the Infant School 
mistress, dated December 10, 1857 : 

" I distinctly remember Miss ScobelPs wish and desire, strongly 
expressed to me, that both she and I should make known to her 
father, the Revd. J. Scobell, the fact of Mr. Neale s visits to her in 
my sitting-room, and of her practice of Confession to him, and of 
receiving Absolution from him. This was not long after her first 
Confession to Mr. Neale. She said she would rather do this her 
self, but if that could not be allowed, she wished I could do it. She 
said she had made this her desire known to Mr. Neale, and requested 
his permission to do so, but that Mr. Neale positively forbade if, and 
threatened that if she did so, he would not give her Absolution. She 
would not therefore tell her father, or allow me to do so ; for, she 
said, Mr. Neale s wish ought to be her and my wish also." * 

Early in December 1855, Miss Scobell wrote a letter to 
her father stating that she had been to Confession, but 
not giving the name of her Confessor. She wrote this 
letter in the presence of Miss Parker, and when the father s 
reply came back it was sent on to Mr. Neale to read, who 
at once, fearing, no doubt, that he would lose his penitent, 
sent word that he would come over from East Grinstead 
to Lewes to see Miss Scobell. Miss Parker states that when 
Miss Scobell heard from her that her Father Confessor was 
coming to see her 

" She was very sorry, and cried, and said, Oh dear, he is com 
ing again ! What shall I do ! I suppose I must see him. On 
Friday the 2ist December he did come, sent to say he wished to 
see her, and they had another long interview, from two to half-past 
five p.m., at my room. When he went away I went in, and she was 
weeping and in an exhausted state and hysterical. I was frightened, 
and cried too. I made her coffee and quieted her. She was not 

1 A Letter to the Rev. John M. Neale. By the Rev. John Scobell, p. 9. 


able to walk home alone, she shook so violently; she could not 
have got along without my arm. I went back to tea and returned 
again to the Rectory in the course of the evening, and sat with her 
two or three hours in her bedroom ; she was very weak, and cried 
again more than once. She said she could not have her own way 
in anything. She said c he overpowered her, and she supposed it 
was right to give up her own will, for she must do as he bid her ; 
I understood this to mean that else (as before) he would not give her 
absolution. And thus I understood that the hope of returning to a 
good understanding with her father was given up by her for lost." 1 

Thus do these Ritualistic Father Confessors come in 
between daughters and their parents, and disturb the peace 
of families, acquiring thereby a greater power in the house 
hold than is possessed by either father or mother. Who 
can wonder that when Mr. Scobell came to quote this last 
declaration of Miss Parker, in his published Letter to the 
Rev. John M. Neale, he should comment on it in the follow 
ing righteously indignant terms : " This was the oppression 
that was intolerable an evil angel had stepped in and the 
waters were as troubled as before. You [Mr. Neale] were 
an incubus which no effort or cry of mine could dislodge, 
and you truly say it was possible I might, as a last remedy, 
have broken up my establishment, and gone to another 
land for refuge. I felt a stabbing in the dark ! a hidden 
voice replying another s eye lurking another hand guid 
ing a relentless heart plotting against a child, whom for 
more than twenty years of her short life 2 I had loved with 
uninterrupted and fullest affection, returned by her with all 
the ardour of an enthusiastic temperament. Oh, for the 
love of God and man desist rash man, desist with all 
who act with you or like you, and never drive another 
fellow-creature to agony and desperation by your boasted, 
but empty, evil-working, ungodly Confessions. " 3 

As to the third witness, another daughter of Mr. Scobell, I 
give her testimony in the words of her father : " As regards 
the matter of secrecy/ In addition to what has been al 
ready said, I give the testimony of a daughter. She has often 

1 A Letter to the Rev. John M. Neale. By the Rev. John Scobell, p. 17. 

2 Miss Scobell was 27 at her death. 

3 A Letter to the Rev. John M. Neale. By the Rev. John Scobell, p. 17. 


heard her deceased sister say, that the reason why she so 
often refused her father the name of her guide, was the un 
willingness of that unknown gentleman to have his name 
mentioned ; and that her sister believed the reason to be 
his dread of the further displeasure of the Bishop." l 

There was one statement in the fifth section of Mr. 
Scobell s indictment of Mr. Neale which he was unable to 
prove. It was contained in these words : " And give her 
self and whatever income and property she may have, to 
an establishment at or near East Grinstead." I happen to* 
know that one of the rules of the Sisterhood at that time 
was that a Sister was not compelled to give all her property 
to the Sisterhood. Before entering the Convent, Miss 
Scobell promised three of her relatives that she would not 
leave, by will, any of her property to the St. Margaret s 
Sisterhood ; it should only have her annual income during 
her life. But on her deathbed she made a will giving the 
Sisterhood ^400 (the rest she gave to a brother), and mak 
ing Mr. Neale and the Mother Superior her sole executors, 
instead of her father. Mr. Neale declared that he in no way 
interfered in the matter of making the will, and was not 
present when it was made by a solicitor who was sent for. 
But the question here arises, how far was she influenced 
in the Confessional ? Some of the Sisters, at least, were 
certainly expected to mention the disposal of their property, 
to their Confessors, in the Confessional. Only the year 
after Miss Scobell died, Mr. Neale himself gave a secret 
address on the subject to the Sisterhood, which was subse 
quently printed for their secret use, and of which I possess 
a copy: "A Sister coming to us," said Mr. Neale, "and 
able to pay the dowry of this House, is at perfect liberty to 
dispose of the rest of her money as she pleases, provided it 
be not on herself. She may give it to whom she will, with 
out mentioning the subject even in Confession. A Sister 
coming to us, and not able to pay any, or all, of the dowry 
of this House, is then bound to mention in Confession why 
not, and to tell the Priest how she disposes of her income" 2 
Here, then, is a case in which the priest uses the Con- 

1 A Reply to the Postscript, p. 9. 

2 The Spirit of the Founder, p. u. 


fessional to interfere with the money and property of the 
Sister. Can we, for one moment, suppose that this is the 
only case in which it is used for this purpose ? And is there 
not grave reason to fear that, even outside of Convent walls, 
the Confessional is used for the same purpose ? 

I have devoted a considerable amount of space to this 
case, because I am not without hope that it will serve as a 
warning to parents, leading them to keep a watchful eye on 
the proceedings of any Father Confessor who may be seek 
ing to influence their daughters. 

The question of Auricular Confession was very much 
discussed in London and the provinces in 1858, in conse 
quence of the Bishop of London (Dr. Tait) having with 
drawn the licence of the Rev. Alfred Poole, Curate of 
St. Barnabas , Pimlico, under the Hon. and Rev. Robert 
Liddell, Vicar of St. Paul s, Knightsbridge, the mother 
parish. The licence was withdrawn on the ground that 
Mr. Poole had advocated systematic Confession to priests, 
and had asked females improper questions on the Seventh 
Commandment. A statement of this case, on behalf of 
Mr. Poole, was published in I864, 1 on which I mainly rely 
for my account of the proceedings and facts. 

A formal complaint against Mr. Poole was forwarded to 
the Bishop of London, on February 26, 1858, by the Hon. 
Rev. F. Baring, together with the written evidence of three 
women who had been to Confession to Mr. Poole. The 
Bishop thereupon sent for the latter gentleman, and read 
to him the statements of the women. " Mr. Poole," says 
the document issued in his defence, " denied before the 
Bishop most solemnly that he ever put to the women, 
whose statements are above referred to, or to any persons, 
the objectionable questions contained in them, or any 
questions of a similar import ; and he asserted to the 
Bishop, that the statements, so far as they express that he 
did so, were entirely and deliberately false." 2 At this 
interview the Bishop questioned Mr. Poole upon the 
general subject of Confession. Later on, Mr. Poole had a 

1 An Authentic Statement and Report of the Case of the Rev. Alfred Poole, 
pp. 140. London : Joseph Masters. 1864. 

2 Ibid. p. 4. 


second interview with the Bishop, who again questioned 
him as to his views and practice, taking on this occasion 
written notes of his replies. The result was that on May 8, 
1858, the Bishop wrote to Mr. Poole : 

" While I fully admit that the statements you have made to me, 
tend to make me look with much suspicion upon the particular 
evidence laid before me, I regret to say, that quite independently of 
that evidence, I am led by your oivn admissions to regard the course 
you are in the habit of pursuing, in reference to Confession, as likely 
to cause scandal and injury to the Church. I feel especially, that 
this questioning of females on the subject of the violations of the 
Seventh Commandment is of a dangerous tendency; and I am 
convinced, generally, that the sort of systematic admission of your 
people to Confession and Absolution, which you have allowed to be 
your practice, ought not to take place. 

" Under these circumstances, I feel I ought to mark my sense of 
the impropriety of what you describe as your practice, and I shall 
therefore feel myself bound, though with great pain, to withdraw 
your licence as Curate of S. Barnabas , and shall send you formal 
notice accordingly." 1 

To this letter Mr. Poole replied, on May nth, asking 
the Bishop to " point out what are the particulars, either as 
regards my admissions, to which you refer, or anything I 
have done, on which your lordship s severe animadversion is 
founded." Two days later the Bishop answered : " I have 
already stated that what I object to in the course which you 
admitted to me that you pursue, is, that questioning, especially 
of females, on the subject of violations of the Seventh 
Commandment, which seems to me of very dangerous 
tendency, and a systematic admission of your people to 
Confession and Absolution, going beyond anything con 
templated- by the services or teaching of our Church." 
To this statement Mr. Poole replied : " The only admis 
sion I have made upon this point is, that 1 asked questions 
in the particular instance alluded to, because I was requested 
by the person to do so knowing beforehand that these were 
the very sins which she came to confess. Am I to under 
stand that your lordship condemns me without previous 

1 An Authentic Statement and Report of the Case of the Rev. Alfred Poole^ 
p. 6. 2 Ibid. p. 8. 


advice or remonstrance given on so difficult a point of 
discretion, in which I am borne out by the approval of my 
Incumbent, viz. that of asking any questions on a certain 
Commandment, when requested to do so by the penitent 
herself, and when the refusal to do so might hinder the 
penitent from opening her griefs ? " l Three days later the 
Bishop sent Mr. Poole notice that unless he could "show 
cause to the contrary" either personally at London House, 
or "in writing," he should at once withdraw his licence. 
The accused preferred to show cause in writing, and did 
so in a letter dated May 2ist, in which he remarked : 

" The ground upon which your lordship intimates your intention 
to withdraw my licence is, that admitting females to Confession, I 
address to them questions of a character calculated to bring scandal 
on the Church. 

" This charge is made in general terms, and I do not know in 
what way I can meet it, unless it be by a general, but a solemn and 
entire, denial of its truth. I admit that when persons, male or 
female, have sought my ministry in Confession, I have put to them 
such questions as have been suggested by the matters confessed, 
which have appeared to me necessary, in order to enable me to give 
the counsel and advice which the case required. But I solemnly 
assert that I have never put any questions of a nature, or in a 
manner, or in language calculated to bring scandal on the Church, 
or otherwise, than was calculated to assist the penitent, and to 
enable him or her to receive more effectually the consolation or 
advice which, as the minister of the church, it was my duty to 
impart." 2 

Mr. Poole concluded by demanding, as of right, " that 
my accusers may be brought before me, and that I may 
meet them face to face, and be allowed such assistance 
as I may require for my defence ; and for this purpose 
I request your lordship to allow me to be furnished with 
a statement in writing of the particular charges which I 
may be required to meet." As a matter of fact, Mr. Poole 
had already, as we have seen, been furnished by the 
Bishop with a written statement of charges, and as to 
the other demands the Counsel for the Bishop, when the 

1 An Authentic Statement and Report of the Case of the Rev. Alfred Poole , 
p. 10. 2 Ibid. p. 12. 


case was being subsequently heard before the Archbishop, 
said : " It had been asked, why was not Mr. Poole afforded 
the opportunity of showing that the statements of the 
witnesses were untrue, and putting a different complexion on 
the matter ? Now, as there were no persons present but 
Mr. Poole and the women, Mr. Poole was the only person 
who could reply to their statements ; and the Bishop 
handed the depositions to Mr. Poole, who made such 
comments upon them as he thought desirable ; and these 
comments and the admissions made by Mr. Poole himself 
were, in the opinion of the Bishop, inconsistent with the 
law and practice of the Church, and quite sufficient to 
show that Mr. Poole had been guilty of grievous indis 
cretion in the performance of the duties of his office." l 
The Bishop, in his letter of May 8th, had practically cast 
off the evidence of the women witnesses, and had only 
acted on it so far as it had been confirmed by Mr. Poole 
himself. As to one of these witnesses, the Bishop s Counsel 
said : " With respect to the questions which the woman 
stated to have been put to her, he did not ask the Court to 
believe anything further than the admissions of Mr. Poole 
himself on that subject." 2 And again, the Counsel said : 
" His learned friends had stated their inability to discover 
whether the Bishop had acted upon a belief of the evidence 
of these women. This seemed rather unfair towards the 
Bishop, when he stated that he was acting on Mr. Poole s 
own admissions, and when it was perfectly clear that he 
was only acting on their evidence so far as it was confirmed 
by Mr. Poole himself. The Bishop, therefore, was not 
acting on conflicting, but on concurrent testimony, and 
surely Mr. Poole had no right to complain of being judged on 
statements which he was not prepared to deny" 3 From his 
first interview with Mr. Poole the Bishop had accepted 
fully his denial that he had ever put to the women the 
particular questions specified. His lordship could not 
well have acted otherwise, for the women were persons of 
notoriously immoral character, whose evidence could not 

1 An Authentic Statement and Report of the Case of the Rev. Alfred Pool 
P- 73- 

2 Ibid. p. 75- 8 Ibid. p. 77. 


be accepted by itself. And therefore he relied on what the 
counsel termed " the admissions of Mr. Poole himself." It 
is important and right to bear in mind that throughout the 
whole of the proceedings no charge was brought by the 
Bishop or any one else, against Mr. Poole himself, nor was 
it suggested in any way that he had acted from evil or 
prurient motives. On the contrary, writing to the Church 
wardens of St. Barnabas on June 24, 1858, in reply to an 
address in favour of Mr. Poole, sent by the Communicants, 
his lordship emphatically said : " I beg to thank you for 
the opportunity you have given me of stating that I fully 
believe him to be a conscientious and upright man." 1 

If I be asked why I devote so much space to this par 
ticular case, I reply that I do so because of its importance 
in the present day, when the Confessional, in its most 
objectionable form, is far more prevalent than it was in 
1858 ; and the evil complained of questioning women on 
the Seventh Commandment far greater than ever before. 
In this particular case, when disguise was no longer 
available, it was thrown off ; the fact that women were 
questioned in this way by Puseyite Confessors was un- 
blushingly avowed, and actually defended by one of Mr. 
Poole s Counsel, in the Archbishop s Court. A meeting of 
the Communicants of St. Barnabas was held on June 29th, 
at which it was unanimously resolved to send to the Bishop 
a letter on this case of Mr. Poole, which, amongst others, 
contained the following statement : 

" It is true also that in your correspondence you specify as 
objectionable Mr. Poole s questioning of females admitted to Con 
fession; but this also is manifestly only a general charge, and it 
appears to us that the propriety or impropriety of such a practice 
must depend on the prior and larger one, of the propriety of Con 
fession altogether. For if the practice of Confession be, as we hold 
it is, the Right of the People, which the clergy may not refuse when 
any come to them for it, then it cannot be more improper to question 
them upon the violation of the Seventh than of any of the other 
Commandments ; or, to question females upon it, if they present them 
selves for Confession, than males." 2 

1 An Authentic Statement and Report of the Case of the Rev Alfred Poole, 
P- 20. 2 Ibidt p- 2I% 


This is plain speech, at any rate, and I trust that it will 
not be forgotten. It was the best argument which could 
be devised in defence of Mr. Poole s conduct ; and the 
only wonder is that the Communicants were not ashamed 
to make it. Mr. Poole s Vicar, the Hob. and Rev. Robert 
Liddell, agreed with them on this point. In his published 
letter to the Bishop of London, he wrote as follows : 

"Your lordship has stated, in your condemnation of Mr. Poole, 
that you consider the questioning, especially of females, on the 
subject of violations of the Seventh Commandment, to be of very 
dangerous tendency. Putting aside, as denied by Mr. Poole, and 
not yet [August 1858] proven, the particular questions with which 
he was charged, I most readily admit the difficulty of this part of 
our duty, the need of much prayer and self-discipline, and the great 
impropriety, nay, sin, on the part of the Confessor, of asking any 
questions on this Commandment, which do not strictly arise out 
of matters confessed^ or out of the circumstances of the penitent, 
otherwise known to him ; because his duty is simply to aid the 
penitent in an unreserved Confession of past acts of sin, not to suggest 
fresh evil. 

"I hope I may be permitted to consider that this is your lord 
ship s general meaning; for I cannot conceive your lordship to 
imply that God s ministers are to be more silent upon one part of 
His holy law than upon another ; or that sinners consciences are to 
be least probed upon that Commandment, which, in spirit and in 
letter, is, by general admission, most violated." * 

This, of course, was a defence of asking questions in 
Confession on the Seventh Commandment, whether of men 
or women, though with great care on the part of the 
Confessor. Protestant Churchmen strongly object to any 
questions whatever being put in Confession on such a 
subject, to persons of an opposite sex. It is an unmitigated 
evil, though, as we have seen, defended and glorified in by 
the Puseyites. Even Mr. Coleridge, in his speech for Mr. 
Poole before the Archbishop, defended the objectionable 
practice. He said : 

" If a person wished to confess, the Scriptural course [Where is 
there Scriptural authority for confessing to priests ?] was to place 

1 A Letter to the Bishop of London On Confession and Absolution, with Special 
Reference to the Case of the Rev. Alfred Poole. By the Hon. and Rev. Robert 
Liddell, p. 26. London : J. T. Hayes. 1858. 


the precepts of the Decalogue before him, and ask him to examine 
himself upon those precepts. In that case must the Seventh 
Commandment be omitted ? Where was the authority to be found 
for such an omission ? He admitted the delicacy of the case, and 
that a prurient person ought to be scouted out of society; but, ad 
mitting the bona-fides of the person administering the Confession, 
where was the authority for leaving out one Commandment more 
than another? If Confession was to be anything more than a mere 
mockery, it was impossible to avoid going into those very questions 
respecting which the penitent was seeking relief and assistance." 1 

The Bishop formally withdrew Mr. Poole s licence on 
May 25, 1858, who thereupon appealed to the Archbishop 
of Canterbury. This was done, says Archbishop Tait s 
biographer, " with the Bishop s entire approval, and even 
encouragement." The Archbishop, unfortunately, gave 
his decision without a formal hearing of Mr. Poole, and 
confirmed the decision of the Bishop of London on July 9th. 
On this Mr. Poole applied to the Court of Queen s Bench 
for a mandamus to compel the Archbishop to hear him. In 
this he was successful, and as a result the case was heard by 
his Grace on February 18 and 19, 1859, Dr. Lushington, as 
Dean of Arches, being his Assessor. Counsel were heard 
on both sides at considerable length, and on March 23, 
1859, Dr. Lushington delivered, at Lambeth Palace, his 
report on the case as Assessor, after which the Archbishop 
gave his judgment in the following terms : 

" With the able assistance of my learned Assessor, I have given 
the merits and circumstances of this Appeal my most serious and 
careful consideration. I am of opinion that the proved and 
admitted allegations afford in the language of the Statute good and 
reasonable cause for the revocation of this licence, and that the 
Lord Bishop of London has exercised a sound discretion in revoking 
the same. 

" And I am further of opinion that the course pursued by the 
Appellant is not in accordance with the Rubric or doctrine of the 
Church of England, but most dangerous and likely to produce most 
serious mischief to the cause of morality and religion." 3 

These two spiritual authorities having dealt with Mr. 

1 An Atithentic Statement, pp. 69, 70. 

2 Life of Archbishop Tait, vol. i. p. 224. 

3 An Authentic Statement, p. 95. 


Poole s case, and having decided it against him, the incon 
sistent Puseyites at once determined to appeal to what they 
considered a purely State Court, the Judicial Committee of 
Privy Council, in the hope that it would upset the decision 
of the Archbishop s Spiritual Court. When the State is 
willing to put down the Protestant cause, the Ritualists are 
quite willing to support its decisions, but if it dare to remove 
one of their pretty ribbons from their backs, the whole 
party is up in arms directly, protesting with all their power 
against the State s audacious profanity. The fact is the 
Ritualists hate and oppose every Court, spiritual or State, 
and every authority, which dares to contradict and condemn 
them, no matter how guilty they may be. Mr. Poole 
appealed to the Judicial Committee, but he did so in vain. 
After hearing arguments on both sides, their lordships 
delivered judgment on March 13, 1861, dismissing the 
appeal, and declaring that, by law, there really was no 
appeal against the Archbishop s decision, which was final. 

At Lavington, Sussex, of which Cardinal Manning was 
once Rector, and of which parish Bishop Samuel Wilber- 
force was at the time the Squire and Patron, a controversy 
broke out as to the alleged Romanising practices of its 
Rector, the Rev. R. W. Randall. The Rector had as Curate 
the Rev. E. Randall, who, though bearing the same sur 
name, was in no way related to him. This Curate, though 
a moderate High Churchman, could not approve of his 
Rector s advanced teaching. The National Standard of 
August 28, 1858, in calling attention to the controversy 
which had arisen, said : " The Rector of Lavington, as we 
learn, is a clergyman of the most extreme views. During 
the time that Mr. Edward Randall was his Curate, he was 
guilty of gross violations of the Rubric, and of sundry most 
unchurchmanlike irregularities. For instance, it was his 
habit to cross himself during divine service, to make the 
sign of the Cross upon the water at Baptism, to mix water 
with wine at the Eucharist, and to bow to the elements after 
consecration. . . . On one occasion Mr. E. Randall, while 
catechising the children at the school, asked them what 
other name there was for the Lord s Supper ? To his 


astonishment they answered The Mass. Upon his remark 
ing that that was the name the Pope called it by, they 
informed him that they had been so taught by the Rector. 
He then asked them how many Sacraments there were ? 
They answered Seven/ and enumerated the Romish Sacra 
ments. He called upon the Rector, and informed him of 
what the children had said, and of the manner in which he 
had corrected them. The Rector rebuked him, and ex 
pressed his determination to go to the school, and unteach 
the Curate s instruction." Subsequently, the Rev. E. Ran 
dall made a statement, asserting the above facts as true, at 
the office of the Protestant Defence Society, in the presence 
of five clergymen. 1 A few days after the above-mentioned 
interview with the Rector, Mr. E. Randall again went into 
the school, when the schoolmaster put into his hands a 
paper, in the Rector s handwriting, containing instruction 
on the Seven Sacraments, which, he said, had been given to 
him in December 1857 by the Rector, in order that its con 
tents might be taught by him to the school children. This 
paper was as follows : 

BAPTISM. A Sacrament instituted by Christ for the spiritual 
regeneration of men, which is performed by the washing of water, 
with the expressed invocation of the Holy Trinity. 

"CONFIRMATION. A Sacrament in which, by the laying on of 
hands, according to the prescribed form, fresh strength is given to 
the baptized, that they may believe firmly, and more constantly and 
bravely contend for the faith. 

" EUCHARIST. A Sacrament of the new law, instituted by our 
Lord, for the heavenly nourishment of our souls, in which the Body 
and Blood of Christ are truly and really present under the form of 
bread and wine. 

" PENANCE. A Sacrament instituted for the forgiveness of sins, 
after Baptism, by the Absolution of the priest. 

" EXTREME UNCTION. A Sacrament of the new law, consisting 
of unction with oil and the prayer of the priest, by which salvation 
of the soul is conferred on a Christian grievously sick, and even 
health of the body, if that be good for the soul. 

" ORDERS. A Sacrament of the new law, in which spiritual 
power is given to the ordained. 

1 A Statement Respecting the Romish Doctrines and Practices of the Rev. R. W. 
Randall. By An English Churchman, p. 21. London : Hatchard. 1858. 


" MATRIMONY. A Sacrament of the new law, in which a baptized 
man and woman naturally give themselves each to the other to live 
together continually. 

" SACRAMENTS. Outward ceremonies instituted to give grace. 

" CONFIRMATION. A Sacrament given by a Bishop to strengthen 
and confirm our faith." 1 

The Curate sent this paper to the Bishop of Chichester, 
in the absence from home of his Rector, and was severely 
censured by his lordship for doing so without first having 
waited until he could discuss the matter with his Rector on 
his return home. The Bishop wrote to the Rector on the 
subject, and in a letter to the Curate (dated February 23, 
1858), declared himself satisfied with the Rector s explana 
tion. What that explanation was remained unknown to the 
public until September i6th, when the Rector wrote to the 
Brighton Gazette of that date: "The very paper of notes 
from which you quote [that is, the document quoted above] 
was intended to be used in the school, not by itself, but 
together with other more detailed papers, for the purpose of 
showing what the Church of England believes, and, at the 
same time, of guarding the children against the Romish 
errors which she has rejected." 2 The extraordinary docu 
ment in question was shown to be substantially a translation 
into English from Den s Theology and the Catechism of the 
Council of Trent. The Rector s letter to the Brighton Gazette 
brought a reply in the next issue of the same paper, dated 
September i8th, from Mr. .H. R. Harding, Choirmaster of 
Lavington Church, in the course of which he said : 

" Alarmed at this state of things I went [on February 3rd] to the 
Schoolmaster, who produced the paper of which I enclose an exact 
entire copy [see above]. This paper, bearing plain evidence that it 
was intended to be taught, by the fact of the five questionable 
Sacraments being repeated, was in the handwriting of the Rector, 
and the Schoolmaster assured me it had been given to him to be 
taught in the school. He was very clear, it was the last and only 
paper he had received from the Rector for many months, and that 
it was not intended to be modified by any other paper or any other 
teaching. He also asserted again and again that the words the 

1 A Statement Respecting the Romish Doctrines and Practices of the Rev. R. W. 
Randall, pp. 31, 32. 2 Ibid. p. 24. 


Rector used on giving him the paper were, The former papers 
would be a guide for me in teaching the Sacraments, but they are 
not sufficiently explicit for you ; this paper is what I want you to 
teach. ... In the evening of that day [February yth] the Rector 
came to me, to satisfy my mind about the paper. The Schoolmaster 
was present. The discussion lasted a long time, and the paper was 
fully defended by the Rector, and certainly he neither brought out 
that the paper was intended to have been taken with others, nor to 
illustrate the Church of Rome. At the conclusion of this interview, 
the Rector said to the Master, If your mind is not made up to the 
paper, I don t wish you to teach it, and asked for the paper." 1 

To this letter of the Choirmaster, who had resigned his 
situation in consequence of the Rector s Romanising, the 
latter gentleman made no reply, and so far as I can ascer 
tain, never publicly denied the truthfulness of the statements 
it contained. The ex-Choirmaster s letter was followed, 
a month later, by one written to the National Standard, by 
the Schoolmaster, Mr. William Marigold, enclosing a letter 
which he had addressed to the Rector, on October 21, 1858, 
in the course of which he said : 

" Every statement with reference to the teaching which appears 
in your letter to the Brighton Gazette of the i6th September I utterly 
contradict ; and every word of Mr. Harding s letter to the same 
paper of 23rd September, in reply to yours, I fully confirm and 
accept as my own. 

" You know well that you did give me that paper containing the 
Seven Sacraments to teach as it stands. You know well that you 
used every means to convince me the paper as it stands is consistent 
with the Church of England s teaching, and that the Bishop had 
accepted it as such. You know well that when I spoke to you in 
consequence of the reports which were in circulation, that you had 
satisfied the Bishop by telling his lordship you had given the paper 
merely to show what the Church of Rome teaches, you arose from 
your scat pale and trembling with emotion, and exclaimed, Thafs 
a lie: . . . 

"You will perhaps say I am prompted to this course, or that I 
have some prospect of advantage in it. Tis not so. I have no 
situation in view, nor any place to turn to when I leave you. But I 
will not be a party to such a system, nor to such conduct." 2 

1 A Statement Respecting the Romish Doctrines and Practices of the Rev. R. W, 
Randall, pp. 28, 29. 2 Ibid. p. 34. 


The Rector never, so far as I can ascertain, gave any 
public denial to the statements made by the Schoolmaster, 
any more than before he had given to those of the Choir 
master, men, both of them, of unblemished reputation, and 
who were certainly not moved by any feelings of personal 
ill-will towards the Rector. Nor did the Rev. R. W. 
Randall deny that his Curate had received the alleged 
answers from the school children as to the Mass and Seven 
Sacraments, nor that he had adopted the ritual and cere 
monies complained of, though he gave up those portions of 
his ritual to which the Bishop objected. He had, it is true, 
two Bishops on his side, viz., those of Oxford and Chi- 
chester. Since then the former Rector of Lavington has 
developed his anti-Protestant views greatly, and has be 
come a Vice-President of the Romanising and rebel English 
Church Union, and a leading man in the Romanising Con 
fraternity of the Blessed Sacrament, established for the 
special purpose of bringing back the self-same Sacrifice of 
the Mass which our Protestant Martyrs died to put down. 
And he has obtained also great favour and honour at the 
hands of the State. In 1892 he was made Dean of Chi- 
chester, an office which he still holds. 

The Bishop of Chichester was requested to issue a Com 
mission, under the Church Discipline Act, with a view to a 
prosecution of the Rev. R. W. Randall for teaching false 
doctrine, and for illegal practices ; but he declined to do so. 
Thereupon the Rev. C. P. Golightly applied to the Court of 
Queen s Bench for a writ of mandamus commanding the 
Bishop of Chichester to issue a Commission under the Act. 
The case was heard on June 6, 1859, and judgment was de 
livered on June I5th, refusing to grant the application. 

MR. JUSTICE HILL said: "If it were necessary to give an 
opinion on the construction of the 3rd Section of the Statute 
[Church Discipline Act], I should have thought that the writ ought 
to issue, so that a question of such importance might be decided on 
the return in such manner that the judgment of this Court might be 
reviewed by a Court of Error. I am not satisfied that it is a mere 
matter in the discretion of the Bishop whether he will issue a Com 
mission if a proper complaint be made by a party who is entitled to 
complain. But it appears to me not necessary to give any opinion 

2 B 


on the construction of the Statute. This is an application to the 
discretion of the Court to issue the prerogative writ of mandamus. 
That the Court has a discretion whether the writ shall be issued or 
not was distinctly recognised by Ashurst J. in R. v. Bishop of 
Chester (i T. R. 403), In the case before the Court the party 
applying for the writ of mandamus is a total stranger to the Diocese 
of Chichester, and in no way interested in the matter charged 
against Mr. Randall, more than any other Clerk in Holy Orders in 
the most remote part of the kingdom. I think it would be produc 
tive of the greatest inconvenience and mischief if this Court were to 
lend its aid to any stranger to compel a Bishop to issue a Commis 
sion in any particular case, and that this Court ought not to interfere 
upon the application of a party who is not shown to be a party 
aggrieved or to have some connection with the parish or Diocese. On 
this short ground, therefore, I think the rule should be discharged." 

MR. JUSTICE WIGHTMAN said: "The real question in the case 
is, whether the Bishop has any discretion in the matter, or whether, 
under the provisions of the Church Discipline Act, 3 & 4 Victoria, 
chap. 86, he is absolutely bound, without previous examination or 
inquiry himself, to issue a Commission of Inquiry as directed by that 
Statute, if any clergyman of his Diocese is charged with an offence 
against the laws ecclesiastical. ... I cannot think that such can 
have been the intention of the Legislature, but that it was intended, 
when this new mode of procedure was instituted, to invest the 
Bishop with a power to cause inquiry to be made in cases where it 
appeared to them that the interests of the Church and the public 
required it, and in the belief that such power would be duly and 
properly exercised whenever a proper case arose ; and that it was 
better for the interest of religion and the public that the Bishop, who 
is the overseer or superintendent of religious matters in the Church, 
should be intrusted with a discretion as to the propriety of issuing a 
Commission of Inquiry in such cases, than that it should be left 
entirely, as expressed by Sir W. Scott, to the judgment or passions 
of private persons, who, under the influence of zeal, or prejudice, 
or fancy, might call peremptorily upon the Bishop, without any real 
or substantial ground, upon a mere scandal or evil report, to in 
stitute proceedings which would cause at once expense, trouble, and 
vexation, and tend to create disturbance and scandal in the Church. 
I am, therefore, of opinion that the Bishop might exercise his dis 
cretion as to the propriety of issuing a Commission in this case, 
and that the present rule for a mandamus should be discharged." l 

Mr. Justice Wightman s opinion, that the Church Dis- 

1 Guardian, July 6, 1859, p. 583. 


cipline Act gave to the Bishop the right to veto proceedings 
under that Act, was upheld by the House of Lords on 
March 23, 1880, in the case of Julius v. Bishop of Oxford. 
The Episcopal Veto has thus been legally established ; but 
there is at present a widespread and rapidly-growing feeling 
in the country that the Bishops have greatly and inexcus 
ably misused the Veto, by shamelessly barring the Courts 
of Justice to those who had a right to enter, and whose case 
was a strong one. They have used the Episcopal Veto to 
protect flagrant law-breakers from the just punishment 
which was their due, and have thus encouraged the very 
lawlessness which they ought to have been the first to 
suppress. It is felt that it is no longer safe to entrust them 
with the power of vetoing ecclesiastical prosecutions. The 
fact that they are so costly and wearisome is alone sufficient 
to prevent any man, or any body of men, from taking up 
the part of prosecutor without a strong prima facie case in 
hand. The Episcopal Veto is at present the shield of law 
lessness, and the oppressor of justice. It must be swept 
away, and the sooner the better. 

For many years the Puseyites had been adding to their 
stock of literature of a Romanising tendency, which had 
become more Romish as the years went on. Some of the 
works which they produced were privately printed, and 
were circulated with great care, lest they should fall into 
Protestant hands. One of the most remarkable books of 
this class was printed in 1855, primarily for use in the 
Scottish Episcopal Church, but also adapted for use in the 
Church of England. It was written by the Rev. William 
Wright, LL.D., who died before it was printed, and it bore 
the title of Directorium Scoticanum et Anglicanum. The 
book simply reproduced the directions of the Church of 
Rome as to what Vestments Ministers should wear at Holy 
Communion, and what ornaments of the Church were 
required ; together with the directions of the Papal Church 
as to rites and ceremonies. The book was, in brief, 
unblushing Popery. At length, in 1858, the Rev. John 
Purchas, M.A., published his now well-known Directorium 
Anglicanum, containing all the superstitions and extrava- 


gances of the Sacrifice of the Mass, as found in the Roman 
Church. At about the same time Mr. Purchas printed for 
private circulation a translation of the Cautels of the Mass 
from the Sarum Missal/ which were so extraordinary that 
I gave a selection of them in the last chapter of my Secret 
History, as they appeared in the fourth edition of the 
Directorium Anglicanum. These Cautels were secretly cir 
culated for seven years before it was considered safe to 
give them to the public. They were published for the first 
time, in the second edition of the Directorium, in 1865. 
This latter book created a great sensation when it first ap 
peared, was sold out within six months, and remained out 
of print until 1865. The last edition, the fourth, was 
issued in 1879, edited by the Rev. F. G. Lee, one of the 
Bishops of the notorious and secret Order of Corporate 
Reunion. The work has had a very large circulation 
amongst the clergy, and this fact affords ample evidence 
of the wide extent to which Roman Catholic ritual has 
spread amongst the clergy in the pay of the Church of 

At about this period the subject of Theological Colleges 
occupied a great deal of public attention. As far back as 
1853, Mr. James Bateman, F.R.S., a Staffordshire gentle 
man, called attention to this important subject at a meeting 
held at Stoke-on-Trent, to consider the advisability of found 
ing a new Theological College at Lichfield. He proved 
clearly that Wells Theological College and Chichester Dio 
cesan College were already under Tractarian control, and 
asserted that there was grave reason to fear that the pro 
posed College at Lichfield would turn out a similar institu 
tion, a fear which the subsequent history of that College 
has more than justified. "This Lichfield scheme," said Mr. 
Bateman, " is but part of an extensive scheme of Tractarian 
policy, which contemplates the creation of similar establish 
ments in every Diocese throughout the land, and which 
whenever the ecclesiastical cordon shall have become com 
plete would effectually exclude from the walls of our 

1 A Translation of the Cautels of the Sarum Ritual. By John Purchas, M.A., 
pp. 14. 4to. Privately printed. 1858. 


Church, every Minister holding to the pure principles of the 
Reformation." * 

As years went on, the need of Mr. Bateman s warning 
became more and more apparent. A Theological College 
had been established at Cuddesdon, near Oxford, which had 
given cause for anxiety to the decided Protestants of the 
Diocese. They perhaps suspected more than they could 
actually prove at that time, but when, in January 1858, the 
Quarterly Review made an attack on Cuddesdon, the Rev. 
C. P. Golightly took the subject up with all the ardour for 
which he was famed. He issued a circular letter to the 
clergy and laity of the Diocese of Oxford, calling attention 
to the article in the Quarterly Review, summarising its 
allegations against Cuddesdon College, and declaring that 
the tendency of the teaching given therein was "to sow 
broadcast the seeds of Romish perversion in the counties 
of Oxfordshire, Berkshire, and Buckinghamshire." 2 The 
Bishop of Oxford (Dr. S. Wilberforce), lost not a day in 
dealing with the charges, which were as follows : " i. That 
the Chapel of the College is fitted up with every fantastic 
decoration to which a party meaning has been assigned. 
2. That the so-called Altar affects in every particular the 
closest approximation to the Romish model. 3. That the 
service of the Sacrament of the Lord s Supper is conducted 
with genuflexions, rinsings of cups in the piscina, and other 
ceremonial acts, foreign to the ritual and usages of the 
Church of England. 4. And, lastly, that a service-book is 
in use in the Chapel concocted from the seven Canonical 
Hours of the Romish Church. " 3 The Bishop promptly 
called the atttention of the Principal of the College (the 
Rev. Alfred Pott), to these accusations, who replied, denying 
the truth of the charges altogether, and requesting his lord 
ship to appoint a Commission, consisting of the three Arch 
deacons of the Diocese, " to examine into the truth of Mr. 
Golightly s allegations, and report officially to you thereon, 
as the Visitor of the College." To this request the Bishop 
agreed, and appointed the three Archdeacons accordingly, 

1 The Tractarian Tendency of Diocesan Theological Colleges. By James Bate- 
man, Esq., M.A., F.R.S., p. 27. London : Seeleys. 1853. 

2 Guardian, February 3, 1858, p. 86. 3 Ibid. 


forgetting that the Protestant party would have had more 
confidence in the Commission, if it had been partly com 
posed of men who were not the officials of the Visitor of 
the College. However, they made their inquiries, and after 
they had had an interview with Mr. Golightly, they made 
their report in February. They dealt with the charges in 
the order in which they were made: (i., 2.) "We see no 
reason for imputing a party meaning to any of these 
decorations nevertheless we think it right to express our 
opinion that there is too lavish a display of ornaments, and 
we consider that excess of decoration in the Chapel of such 
an institution has a tendency, on the one hand, to strengthen 
a prejudice which already exists in some minds against 
Theological Colleges, and, on the other hand, to encourage 
in the students a disproportionate regard for the mere 
accessories of public worship, and to invest them with an 
over-prominent importance. The so-called altar is a 
movable table of wood. It has on the side next the east 
wall a raised shelf, on which stand two candlesticks. The 
candles in these are never lighted, except when the Chapel 
is lighted throughout. ... At the time of the celebration of 
Holy Communion the table is covered with a fair linen 
cloth, without lace or other ornament. A cloth with lace 
was formerly used ; but the use has been discontinued in 
consequence of the recent judgment of the Privy Council. 
We find that at one period a small metal cross stood on 
the shelf of the table. It was given ; and was placed there 
by the donor without objection on the part of the heads of 
the College ; but was removed about a year ago by your 
lordship s directions." 3. The truth of this charge the Com 
missioners denied altogether, though they admit that "it 
was at one time the custom to rinse the Sacramental vessels 
in the piscina of the Chapel ; " but that this practice had 
" for some time been abandoned." 4. As to the Service- 
Book in use in the Chapel " We have examined the 
prayers and hymns, and think them not only unexception 
able, but highly valuable. The book is certainly not con 
cocted from the Seven Canonical Hours of the Romish 
Church/ nor, in our judgment, does it contain or suggest 


any doctrine at variance with that of the Church of England. 
It has, however, been cast in a form which bears an unfor 
tunate resemblance to the Breviary of the Church of Rome ; and 
we think it would be much improved if the compilers would 
abandon the title of Antiphon, and the obsolete designation 
of the Hours." 1 

The Bishop, in sending on his Archdeacons report to the 
Principal of Cuddesdon, actually said : " I am rejoiced to 
see that it negatives completely every charge brought against 
you by my gossiping friend, Mr. Golightly ; " 2 though how 
that could be, when it acknowledged the accuracy of several 
of his facts, it is hard to see. Mr. Golightly had certainly 
proved to the Archdeacons that there was need for reform. 
There was more going on in the College than Mr. Golightly 
was then aware of. The Bishop himself was by no means 
satisfied with the existing state of things. He wrote to a 
friend : " Then there are things in the actual life [in 
Cuddesdon College] I wish changed. The tendency to 
crowd the walls with pictures of the Mater Dolor osa, &c., 
their chimney-pieces with Crosses, their studies with 
Saints, all offend me and all do incalculable injury to the 
College in the eyes of chance visitors. The habit of some 
of our men of kneeling in a sort of rapt prayer on the steps 
of the Communion Table, when they cannot be alone there ; 
when visitors are coming in and going out and talking 
around them : such prayers should be in the closet with 
the door shut and setting apart their grave dangers, as 
I apprehend them to be to the young men, they really 
force on visitors the feeling of the strict resemblance to 
what they see in Belgium, &c., and never in Church of 
England Churches." 3 The Rev. H. P. Liddon, afterwards 
widely known as Canon Liddon, of St. Paul s Cathedral, 
was at this time Vice-Principal of Cuddesdon College, 
and the Bishop was not satisfied with his teaching and 
influence in fact, he was anxious to get rid of him on 
this account. " It was," says the Bishop s biographer, " a 
far graver and greater question than one of mere forms 

1 Guardian, March 3, 1858, p. 183. 

2 Ibid, 

3 Life of Bishop Wilberforce, vol. ii. p. 368. 


and ceremonies which lost to Cuddesdon College the ser 
vices of its able Vice-Principal. The Principal, in one of 
his letters to the Bishop, says : On the Eucharistic 
question I feel that, although I and Liddon have never 
had a word like dispute since we have been together, we 
are mutually conscious of a difference on this point, and 
so are our men. The Bishop, in a letter written about 
this time, says: Our (that is, Liddon s and mine), theo 
logical standpoint is not identical. On the great doctrine 
of the Eucharist we should use somewhat different lan 
guage and our Ritualistic tendencies would be all coloured 
by this. On Confession, and its expedient limits, we should 
also, I think, differ. The Principal entirely agreed with 
me. ;; i 

And so Mr. Liddon was induced to resign the Prin 
cipal had already done so but the Bishop was anxious 
that the public should not know the real reason. So he 
wrote to the Rev. W. J. Butler, Vicar of Wantage, and 
afterwards Dean of Lincoln : " Now no reason need be 
given but that after full deliberation the coming of the 
new Principal necessitated a new Vice-Principal." 2 The 
biographer of Bishop Wilberforce denies that Golightly s 
attack was the cause of Liddon s resignation ; but a warm 
friend of the Oxford Movement, in his sketch of Canon 
Liddon s life, distinctly asserts that " on account of the 
attacks that were made upon the College, after five years 
of laborious and loving work, Liddon resigned." 3 Mr. 
Golightly s attack was, therefore, not without satisfactory 
results. Another satisfactory result was seen at the annual 
festival of the College that year. The Union, in giving a 
friendly notice of the proceedings, remarked that, " evi 
dently in consequence of Mr. Golightly s attack," several 
changes were made "A Cross and flowers on the altar, 
banners, a second celebration, Gregorian music, and a 
procession up the village have been given up." 4 This 
organ of the advanced section of the Romanisers was 

1 Life of Bishop Wilberforce^ vol. ii. p. 366. 

2 Ibid. p. 371. 

3 Five Great Oxford Leaders. By the Rev. A. B. Donaldson, p. 237. 
London : Rivingtons. 1900. 

4 Union, June 5, 1858, p. 362. 


furious at Bishop Wilberforce and the Principal for yield 
ing to the Protestant demands, and charged them with 
trimming and compromising. 

The Oxford Protestant Crusade against Tractarianism 
was renewed in January 1859, but this time it was directed 
not specially against Cuddesdon College, but against the 
Ritualistic Movement throughout the Diocese of Oxford, 
and included a severe attack on the administration of the 
Bishop of Oxford himself. The attack was again led by 
the Rev. C. P. Golightly, in an anonymous pamphlet 
(the authorship of which was at once widely known), en 
titled, Facts and Documents Shewing the Alarming State of 
the Diocese of Oxford. The author termed himself " neither 
a High Churchman nor a Low Churchman," but " simply 
a Protestant, and a true son of the Church of England." 
He quoted largely from the Directorium Anglicanum, be 
cause its author, Mr. Purchas, acknowledged his obligations 
for assistance in compiling that Romanising work to the Rev. 
T. Chamberlain, Vicar of St. Thomas , Oxford ; to the Rev. 
F. G. Lee, formerly a student of Cuddesdon College, and 
subsequently a Curate in the Diocese of Oxford ; x and to the 
Rev. T. W. Perry, then Curate of Addington, in the same 
Diocese. He also quoted from the Churchman s Diary, 
of which Mr. Chamberlain was the reputed editor. 

"I shall now," continued Mr. Golightly, "proceed to set before 
the reader a series of extracts from the above-named publications, 
and to furnish him with a few facts, to show the introduction into 
the Diocese, actual or attempted, of the following peculiarities of the 
Romish system, viz., Auricular Confession, Altar Crosses and Cruci 
fixes, Processions and Processional Crosses and Banners, Stone 
Altars, the Romish Wafer, Mixing Water with the Wine at the 
Eucharist, Elevation of the Elements, Bowing to the Elements, the 
Priest Crossing Himself, Unction of the Sick, Prayers for the Dead, 
Masses for the Dead, Romish Vestments, Romish Ornaments, 
Sisterhoods. I shall conclude with a few remarks upon Cuddesdon 
College and the Lavington Case, with especial reference to the 
position of the Bishop of this Diocese." 2 

1 Since then a Bishop of the secret Order of Corporate Reunion. 

2 Facts and Documents. By a Senior Clergyman of the Diocese, p. n. 
London : Wertheim, Mackintosh & Co. 1859. 


In proof of the existence of Auricular Confession in the 
Diocese, Mr. Golightly quoted from the Churchman s Diary, 
and referred to the Confessional revelations which had just 
been made public at Boyne Hill, in the Diocese, and to the 
Rev. W. Gresley s book, The Ordinance of Confession, whose 
author was at the time Vicar of Boyne Hill. As to the use 
of Crucifixes, he merely relied on the Directorium, without 
mentioning any instances in which they were in use in the 
Diocese; but as to Altar Crosses, he said: "The Bishop 
of Oxford removed an Altar Cross from the shelf of the 
Communion Table in Cuddesdon College Chapel ; but he 
defended the use of Altar Crosses, when attached to the 
east wall of the Church, to the Churchwardens of Holy well 
Parish, and in a speech (January 8, 1859) at the consecration 
of Addington Church, near Winslow. He objects, however, 
to Crucifixes." 1 As to Processions, Processional Crosses, 
and Banners, after citing the Directorium, he added : " A 
Procession with Processional Crosses took place at the anni 
versary of Cuddesdon College in 1855, and was so strongly 
objected to by some of the clergy, that the Bishop promised 
that it should not occur again." 2 Yet on January 8th, 
that very year, his lordship had taken part in a procession 
at the consecration of Addington Church, near Winslow, in 
which a Banner was carried, and also a Processional Cross, 
by the Curate, the Rev. T. W. Perry, one of Mr. Purchas 
assistants in bringing out his Directorium. The Bishop had 
consecrated, in 1848, three Cemetery Chapels at Oxford, 
with illegal Stone Altars, and he was reminded that in 
addition there were, at that moment, Stone Altars at St. 
Thomas , Oxford ; Wolvercote, Littlemore, St. John s, 
Sandford, Radley, and Binsey, all in his Diocese. For 
the charge of using Wafers and the Mixed Chalice, Mr. 
Golightly quoted the Directorium^ and as to Elevation of 
the Elements, he mentioned that it had been practised by 
the Rev. F. G. Lee, at Kennington Church, near Oxford. 
For the rest of the charges, viz., Bowing to the Elements, the 
Priest Crossing Himself, Anointing of the Sick, Prayers and 

1 Facts and Documents, p. 1 2. 

2 Ibid. p. 13. 


Masses for the Dead, Romish Vestments and Ornaments, 
he quoted only the Directorium. Mr. Golightly had a 
strong case, but it would have been much stronger if he 
could have proved that the Romanising books he had cited 
were actually in use in the Diocese. He concluded by giving 
a list of 125 Members of Oxford University who had seceded 
to the Church of Rome, including eighty-six clergymen. 

I dare say that some of my readers may think these 
were comparatively small things, when compared with what 
we see around us to-day ; but I may remind them of what 
the Ritualistic Churcli Review said about them six years 
later : " The Protestant is quite right in recognising the 
simplest attempt at Ritual as the thin edge of the wedge. 
It is so. ... It is only the child who is not terrified when 
the first creeping driblet of water and the few light bubbles 
announce the advance of the tide ; and the Protestant is 
but a child who does not recognise the danger of the 
trifling symptoms which are slowly and surely contracting 
the space of ground upon which he stands." x Mr. Golightly 
recognised the danger, and, to his honour be it recorded, 
he did his best to protect the Church by raising a warning 
cry, though he had to pay the penalty of the scoffs and 
abuse of the men whose unworthy conduct he exposed. 
But, after all, sensible men know very well that ridicule is 
not argument. 

No sooner was Mr. Golightly s pamphlet published than 
a great outcry arose in what may now be termed the 
Ritualistic camp, and great wrath in the Palace of the 
Bishop of Oxford, whose special failing was that he did not 
sufficiently curb the extravagances of men who often went 
further than himself in a wrong direction. Dr. Wilberforce 
always disliked the man, whether he was a Protestant or a 
Romaniser, who was the cause of a row. His anger at 
Mr. Golightly s audacity scarcely knew any bounds. The 
Saturday Review was indecently insulting. " If anybody," 
it said, "is wanted to do a job extremely dirty and offen 
sive, such as signing a protest complaining of a sermon, or 
denouncing a brother clergyman, Mr. Golightly is the man 
for it." 

1 Church Review, June 24, 1865, p. 587. 


As to the charge against the Bishop of taking part in a 
procession at Addington, in which a Banner and Proces 
sional Cross were carried, the Rev. J. W. Burgon (after 
wards Dean of Chichester) gave the following explanation : 
" Had the Reverend author of the pamphlet, instead of 
alarming himself and the Diocese, respectfully asked his 
lordship how it came to pass that he did not insist on the 
removal of such a toy [as the Processional Cross] before 
proceeding with the consecration, he would doubtless have 
received the same reply which the present writer received 
when he asked the same question : There was no 
Bishop s procession : and I did not see the toy till it 
was too late to act ; or it was just what I would have 
done. In Church I actually did so, as to the paraphernalia 
of the Celebration. " l The Bishop s own direct explanation 
of what took place was given two months later, in reply to 
an address from seventy-eight of his Protestant clergy : 
"The only Procession there," said the Bishop, "was the 
walking round the new ground to be added to the church 
yard, as appointed in the Consecration Service in use in 
every Diocese in England, and the reading or chanting of 
the appointed Psalm. The temporary Curate, a stranger to 
our Diocese and its usages, carried in his hand a Wand, to 
which he had fastened a small metal Cross. This he did with 
out my knowledge, or that of his Patron ; and, as soon as I 
had the opportunity of speaking to him, at my desire he laid 
it aside." 2 And so there was a Processional Cross after all ; 
but the Bishop certainly cleared himself from any respon 
sibility or blame for what had taken place. Yet in the very 
same document in which he completely cleared himself, as 
to this instance, he actually defended the custom assailed. 
In their Address to the Bishop the Protestant clergy of the 
Diocese had said : " At the Anniversary of Cuddesdon 
College, and at the consecration or reopening of several 
Churches, it is reported, and we believe truly, that there 
have been Processions of Clergymen in Surplices, with 
Banners and Crosses, and chanting Hymns and Psalms : 

1 Guardian, February 23, 1859, p. 166. 

2 Address to the Bishop of Oxford of the Rev. E. A. Litton and Other Clergy 
men of the Diocese, p. 9. No printer s name or publisher s. 


all bearing a close resemblance in many respects to the 
Romish Processions." 1 The Bishop, in his reply, quoted 
this statement in full, did not deny that Crosses and 
Banners were so carried ; defended what had taken place, 
and added : " / see no objection to such a devout and orderly 
walking to Church, . . . and 1 therefore cannot censure or 
forbid it." 2 

The Bishop acknowledged that he had consecrated 
Cemetery Chapels at Oxford with Stone Altars, but it was 
without his knowledge, and that subsequently he had used 
his influence and succeeded in having placed in their room 
movable tables with wooden legs, but with " stone tops." 
When such stone slabs had been erected elsewhere in the 
Diocese, he did not " think it wise to move in the matter," 
in order to their removal, so long as no " superstitious 
use" was made of them; indeed, he "saw no objection 
to their retention." 3 Dr. Wilberforce acknowledged that 
Churchmen in the Diocese did "suffer much from the 
attempts made by a few, mostly inexperienced young menf 
to introduce amongst us unusual ornaments or Ritual 
observances" so that the Bishop had to acknowledge 
after all that there was just cause for anxiety. In con 
cluding his reply to the Protestant clergy of his Diocese, 
his lordship censured them for what they had done, declared 
that the controversy had been " wantonly stirred up," and 
added the request : " If at any time any point in my 
conduct of the Diocese causes you scruple or alarm, that 
you will tell me privately of your difficulty, instead of 
flying to inflammatory appeals." 5 But, unfortunately for 
his plea, Mr. Golightly had told the Bishop " privately," 
some time before he appealed to the public, what had 
" caused him scruple and alarm " in the Bishop s conduct 
at Cuddesdon and throughout the Diocese, and had got 
nothing from him for his pains. In matters of this kind 

1 Address to the Bishop of Oxford, p. I. 

2 Ibid. pp. 8, 9. 

3 Ibid. pp. 12, 13. 

4 This is exactly what the Bishops now say of the Romanisers; they are but 
" few," and " inexperienced young men." But where they are now the rank and 
file will be thirty years hence, if not checked. 

5 Address to the Bishop of Oxford t pp. 15, 16. 


public appeals are alone likely to make the Bishops do their 
duty. If High Church Bishops can only succeed in gag 
ging the Protestants, so as to stifle their public protests 
against Popery in the Church of England, the cause of 
the Reformation will not long survive in her fold. 

To the Bishop s reply a weighty rejoinder was pub 
lished by the Rev. ]. Tucker, B.D., Vicar of West Hen- 
dred, Berks, and formerly Fellow of Corpus Christi 
College, Oxford. Mr. Tucker was one of the oldest 
clergymen in the Diocese, and his reply was able, learned, 
and convincing. At the close he addressed the Bishop 
in words of great power and justice : 

" And now. my lord," he said, " in conclusion, I must make my 
very serious appeal to your lordship, in the hope that it may not be 
in vain. I am not writing in the heat, and under the impulse of 
youth, for I am advancing in years ; nor am I conscious of any 
feeling of bitterness towards yourself or any individual ; I have well 
thought over and calmly deliberated, not only upon what I have 
now written, but on every step that I have taken in conjunction 
with those with whom I am associated. It is my conviction, 
resting, as I believe, on plain matters of fact, that views are being 
propagated and are spreading throughout our Church, subversive of 
that pure faith restored by our forefathers, and tending to gradually 
bring us back into all the corruptions and superstitions of Rome ; 
and under this conviction, I consider myself bound by the most 
solemn obligations to do what I can in my day, in my humble and 
narrow sphere, to expose and resist these encroachments, and to 
uphold God s pure truth. 

" I have consequently heartily and readily joined with others of 
my brethren in the Ministry in remonstrating with the Archdeacons 
and Rural Deans on their statements and assertions, and in address 
ing your lordship on the state of things. While others, the majority 
of the clergy in the Diocese, have also addressed your lordship, they 
have spoken only of their confidence and attachment to your person, 
and admiration of your great activity and zeal, and have made general 
and vague declarations of their disbelief of any danger : but they have 
not brought forward one single fact, nor questioned one single assertion 
of facts made by us. We, on our part have, in both the Remonstrance 
and Address, dealt with facts, and facts alone; and, whilst we have 
most carefully avoided everything that could be construed into dis 
respect to your lordship, or that could cause unnecessary irritation 


in the breast of any one, we have asked your lordship to discourage 
and suppress, so far as you can, certain things which we specify as 
leading to Popery. 

" Your lordship in your reply has refused every one of our re 
quests ; you have conceded nothing ; one thing you admit the existence 
of, and you admit that it is unlawful ; but, instead of promising to 
exercise your own influence and authority as a Ruler in the Church 
for its removal, you say to us, you have the same power of remov 
ing them as I have. Thus you give your countenance to those who 
promote what our Reformers condemned, and discountenance those 
who seek for nothing but what our Protestant fathers upheld. As 
regards human judgment, let the Church, her Bishops, Clergy, and 
Laity, judge between your lordship and us. Vital truth is at stake ; 
and it concerns not this Diocese only, nor the Clergy alone, but the 
whole Church of England, Clergy, and Laity, at home and abroad, 
to see that the Truth is preserved. . . . 

" I respectfully entreat your lordship to abstain in future from 
casting reflections on any body of your Clergy, however small, who 
under a sense of duty express to your lordship their honest and 
deliberate convictions. It cannot tend to uphold either your own 
character or ours, nor to promote peace. While respect is justly due 
from Presbyters to their Bishop, they have a right to look to be 
treated with respect by him." l 

The address of the three Archdeacons and twenty-four 
Rural Deans to which Mr. Tucker here refers, was dated 
February 23rd. It asserted that the statements contained 
in Facts and Documents were, from their " own knowledge 
of the Diocese," nothing less than " unjustifiable misrepre 
sentations." They denied that the Bishop had " ever 
sanctioned any peculiarities of the Romish system." They 
condemned Mr. Purchas Directorium Anglicanum as "a 
very unwise and mischievous publication " ; but they took 
good care not to term it, as it deserved, a disloyal and 
thoroughly Popish production. They declared themselves 
to be " loyal and affectionate sons " of the Church of 
England, opposed to the introduction of any peculiarities 
of the Romish system ; and, in conclusion, they solemnly 
affirmed that the statements of Mr. Golightly were "pre 
sumptuous and unfounded calumnies against your lordship 

1 A Letter to the Lord Bishop of Oxford, By the Rev. J. Tucker, B.D., 2nd 
edition, pp. 15-17. London : James Nisbet & Co. 1859. 


in the Diocese." l But, as Mr. Tucker so forcibly pointed 
out, they had " not brought forward one single fact, nor 
questioned one single assertion of facts " brought forward 
on the Protestant side. It was all assertion, and no proof ! 
But it pleased the Bishop immensely. His reply was all 
gushing gratitude, though he could scarcely have forgotten 
that the testimony in his favour was entirely from men 
who held their offices as Archdeacons and Rural Deans 
solely and entirely to his nomination, and at his pleasure. 
He thanked God that his Diocese was not"ihe centre of 
a Romanising Movement," though it was manifest to the 
world that the Movement was born in Oxford, and still 
drew its main inspiration from its University. 

In reply to the Address of the Archdeacons and Rural 
Deans, a Remonstrance was signed by eighty-four Pro 
testant clergymen of the Diocese. In this document they 
appealed to a series of facts, which they enumerated, of a 
distinctly Romanising character, and challenged those 
whom they addressed to deny, if they could, their accuracy ; 
and " to specify, one by one, what are the statements which 
they feel bound solemnly to declare are unjustifiable 
misrepresentations/ and presumptuous and unfounded 
calumnies " 2 in the pamphlet, Facts and Documents. My 
readers will, no doubt, be very much surprised to hear that 
the Archdeacons and Rural Deans never accepted this chal 
lenge, and that they had not the courtesy even to formally 
acknowledge its receipt. But one of the Rural Deans, to 
whom the Protestant Remonstrance was addressed, the 
Rev. Henry Bull, published a reply on his own account, 
and not as the delegated representative of the others. 
Mr. Bull declared that their Address to the Bishop was 
mainly intended as a vote of confidence in him personally. 
" But the Remonstrants," wrote Mr. Bull, " on the other 
hand, maintain that there was no misrepresentation ; and 
in order to establish their case, challenge us to disprove 
certain facts stated by